Diagnosis Is Not Prescription: Linguistic Co-Adaptation Explains Patching Hazards in LLM Pipelines
Authors: Yoon Jeonghun, Kim Dongchan
Summary
arXiv:2605. 21958v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When a multi-module LLM agent fails, the module most responsible for the failure is not necessarily the best place to intervene.
Relevance
Read next because Diagnosis Is Not Prescription: Linguistic Co-Adaptation Explains Patching Hazards in LLM Pipelines overlaps with clean result "Language-mismatch LoRA SFT on Qwen2.5-7B leaks the trained completion language into bystander directives the model was never trained on, absent under same-language SFT (LOW confidence)", clean result "Coupling evil personas with wrong answers fails to protect Qwen2.5-7B from EM-induced alignment collapse — and the apparent capability ordering across coupling conditions is mostly eval contamination (LOW confidence)", clean result "Only continuous soft prefixes hit both EM axes at once on Qwen-2.5-7B-Instruct: discrete prompt searches split between the alignment objective and the distributional objective, and both discretizations of the soft prefix collapse (MODERATE confidence)". Matching terms: rect, alignment, correct, line, rate, alone, symmetry, asymmetry. Source: arxiv cs.CL (NLP).
Threat model
Potential threat/caveat for clean result "Language-mismatch LoRA SFT on Qwen2.5-7B leaks the trained completion language into bystander directives the model was never trained on, absent under same-language SFT (LOW confidence)": this item discusses failure.
Abstract
arXiv:2605.21958v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When a multi-module LLM agent fails, the module most responsible for the failure is not necessarily the best place to intervene. We demonstrate this Diagnostic Paradox empirically: causal analysis consistently identifies the routing module -- which selects which tool to call next -- as the primary bottleneck across three independent agent families. Yet injecting prompt-level correction examples into this module consistently degrades performance, sometimes severely. Patching an upstream query-rewriting module instead reliably improves outcomes. The effect holds with statistical significance on two agent families and directional consistency on a third; alternative repair strategies at the routing module (instruction rewriting, model upgrade) are neutral, confirming that the harm is specific to correction-injection patching. We explain this asymmetry through the Linguistic Contract hypothesis: each downstream module implicitly adapts to its upstream's characteristic error distribution, so correcting the bottleneck breaks this implicit alignment in a way that upstream corrections do not. We operationalize this via a per-agent co-adaptation measure, derived from diagnosis alone, and show it is consistently associated with patching harm across agent families: higher co-adaptation co-occurs with harm, lower with safety. This trend holds across all three agent families, providing preliminary support for the hypothesis beyond a single-agent observation.