Watson: A Cognitive Observability Framework for the Reasoning of LLM-Powered Agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into autonomous systems, giving rise to a new class of software known as Agentware, where LLM-powered agents perform complex, open-ended tasks in domains such as software engineering, customer service, and data analysis. However, their high autonomy and opaque reasoning processes pose significant challenges for traditional software observability methods. To address this, we introduce the concept of cognitive observability—the ability to recover and inspect the implicit reasoning behind agent decisions. We present Watson, a general-purpose framework for observing the reasoning processes of fast-thinking LLM agents without altering their behavior. Watson retroactively infers reasoning traces using prompt attribution techniques. We evaluate Watson in both manual debugging and automated correction scenarios across the MMLU benchmark and the AutoCodeRover and OpenHands agents on the SWE-bench-lite dataset. In both static and dynamic settings, Watson surfaces actionable reasoning insights and supports targeted interventions, demonstrating its practical utility for improving transparency and reliability in Agentware systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".