arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2608.28631

CrossAudit: A Git-Native, Cross-Vendor Audit Loop for Agentic Science

Abstract

An AI scientist should not grade its own homework. Yet in the systems we examined, the agent that reviews the work usually comes from the same model family as the agent that produced it, or at least from the same vendor. Model evaluators are known to favour their own generations. Whether models trained alike also share blind spots is a conjecture, not a settled finding, but if they do, the reviewer inherits the author's. The record of what was flagged and what was waved through often sits in platform logs that nobody outside can replay. We present CrossAudit, a protocol for supervising autonomous research pipelines. It rests on three commitments. Each increment of work is audited by an agent from a different vendor against a rulebook a human wrote and versioned. Reports, verdicts, disputes and rulings are git commits, so the supervision history can be re-read and cited; raw model exchanges are not yet part of that record. Scripted checks run before any model does. Advisory judgement never gates the pipeline: a model blocks only by citing a rule, and no model may waive a deterministic failure. Blockers that survive a bounded number of revision rounds go to a person. We state the protocol as eight invariants. We describe a reference implementation built from GitHub Actions and a few hundred lines of Python, and report a live deployment of a closely related variant in a computational-chemistry pipeline. We also ran a seeded-defect trial (30 increments, 43 seeded defects, one run per configuration). A cross-vendor audit of our own repository then voided its blinding. We adopt that audit's findings and report the corrected results. The trial shows that two vendors read the same rulebook differently. It does not show that either is better. The strongest evidence here is the committed, uncontrolled record of cross-vendor audits of this paper itself.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Zhaohe Dong, Yuhao Chen. 2026-08-05. CrossAudit: A Git-Native, Cross-Vendor Audit Loop for Agentic Science. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.28631

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Taking the Whys Seriously: Limitations of Counterfactual Explanations in Justification and Recourse

Counterfactual explanations (CEs) are widely used in explainable artificial intelligence (AI) to show how a model's outputs would change if the input features were manipulated. This technique is used for a range of tasks such as debugging models, explaining predictions, justifying decisions, and providing algorithmic recourse. In this paper, we explore the normative legitimacy of employing counterfactuals in real-life model deployment settings. We discuss the different stakes involved in these different purposes for which CEs are commonly employed, and find stricter requirements for justification and recourse. In particular, we find that naive application of CEs for justification and recourse can lead to ignoring contestable choices made throughout the machine learning (ML) pipeline, thus obfuscating that decisions and counterfactuals for those decisions are also artifacts of an organization's materialized design and governance choices. We demonstrate this with four empirical experiments involving interventions at stages of the ML pipeline ``upstream" of the explanation itself, and show that these affect the generated counterfactuals. We find that an organization's choices on measurement models for feature and labels, business requirements, model validation, and the metric of model success have as much or more impact on the generated counterfactuals as the specifics of the generating method. Our findings underline the need to account for such choices upon providing justification and recourse, providing a stark reminder of the relational nature of these tasks. As putative justifications or recourse recommendations, CEs do not provide adequate answers to some important "why"-questions because they preclude consideration of whether the decision-maker ought to have acted differently.

cs.CY

Don't You Know, Pump it Up! Investigating Cryptocurrency Manipulation in Telegram-Driven Activity

Telegram plays a pivotal role in cryptocurrency communication and has been repeatedly associated with coordinated schemes, such as pump-and-dump manipulation. However, existing studies typically focus on known manipulation chats or a limited set of cryptocurrencies, leaving open the question of how Telegram is leveraged for mass promotional activity (shilling) at scale. Moving beyond these limitations, this work analyzes the interplay between information flows and market activity across public Telegram channels. To this end, we propose a scalable framework that (i) classifies crypto-related messages using a fine-tuned encoder model to filter semantic noise, (ii) detects anomalous spikes in cryptocurrency mentions via adaptive thresholding, and (iii) validates temporal associations between social bursts and market movements using quasi-experimental econometric methods (RDD and DiD). We apply this framework to one year of public Telegram data (14,499 channels and over 20 million messages) aligned with transaction data for more than 17,000 cryptocurrencies. Our analysis identifies 47 events consistent with potential pump-and-dump activity and 73 sustained market reactions, showing that manipulative signals are characterized by extreme temporal synchronization and precede price movements by seconds. Notably, psycholinguistic analysis reveals that pump-and-dump messages are linguistically indistinguishable from organic discussions, highlighting the limits of text-based detection alone. Finally, we estimate the cumulative financial volume of detected pump-and-dump events to exceed $200 million and release a public cryptocurrency dictionary and a fine-tuned classifier to support future research.

cs.SI

Are Economists Open to AI? A Text-as-Data-as-Survey Approach via Language Models

Traditional surveys yield comparable measures but are costly to field, difficult to reconstruct retrospectively, and often ill-suited to fast-moving or sensitive topics. While large-scale internet text is often noisy and weakly structured. To bridge this gap, we introduce Text-as-Data-as-Survey (TaDaS). TaDaS employs Reference-Anchored Semantic Reparameterization (RAS) to project unstructured main text into survey-like evidence, leveraging structured auxiliary text as semantic anchors. Applying TaDaS to 1.25 million Economics Job Market Rumors posts linked with 53,585 top economics and finance publications, we track economists' evolving research sentiment toward AI. Cross-sectionally, AI-related research discussions are less open, with openness and curiosity declining rapidly at first years. Over time, however, economists have become increasingly open and curious, with a notable shift around 2018. Ultimately, TaDaS provides a scalable, non-reactive method to extract longitudinal insights from digital archives, unlocking diverse applications across industry and academia.

cs.CE