arXiv:2608. 03836v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A framework that persists execution state so a run can be interrupted, survive a crash, and continue must decide what a resume means for effects that already fired.
arXiv:2609. 00546v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agent systems are commonly described by the model and harness that currently produce their behavior.
The paper investigates how tool‑using language‑model agents can safely commit changes to infrastructure when external state may change between read and commit. By distinguishing invalidating races from predicate‑preserving and irrelevant ones, the authors evaluate three commit‑time guard granularities—global epoch, read‑set version, and semantic commit predicate—using a deterministic simulator and three quantized model families. The study finds that only the complete predicate guard consistently eliminates unsafe commits, while freshness‑based guards block a large proportion of benign races and model‑side signals fail to replace precise semantic enforcement.
The paper investigates where exactly‑once semantics should be enforced for tool‑using agents—within the model, the agent harness, or the tool contract—by evaluating 25,930 episodes across nine models, three harnesses, two contract variants, and fifteen recovery conditions. Using the LIMBO sandbox, the study shows that when an immediate read‑back is available, frontier models rarely duplicate lost acknowledgements, whereas weaker models do; when read‑back is unavailable, the contract’s idempotency keys explain most duplicate behavior. The authors prove that verification‑only policies cannot guarantee exactly‑once under late commits without bounded in‑flight time, and that waiting only helps when delays are short and predictable. whyItMatters":"The findings clarify that enforcing exactly‑once semantics largely depends on the tool contract and fault type, guiding designers on where to focus reliability mechanisms for LLM agents."
arXiv:2609. 04875v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Long-running LLM agents are stateful: beyond the transcript they accrete compressed summaries, plaintext memory, pending tool plans, and, under every serving API, a KV cache.
The paper introduces “Revise”, a runtime system that performs validity-guided, fine-grained recovery for online revisions in structured agent workflows. When a revision arrives, Revise intersects the change with recorded data and control dependencies, propagates the impact through the partially executed DAG, stops invalid work, preserves unaffected progress, and recomputes only the affected region. Experiments on real coding‑agent traces and LangGraph/LLMCompiler applications show that Revise matches a latest‑version oracle, reduces model calls by up to 56%, and improves service‑level objective goodput under load.
arXiv:2606. 17182v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent LLM systems share state through memory stores, vector indices, and tool registries.
arXiv:2608. 03222v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Software engineering (SWE) agents resolve repository-level issues through long trajectories that grow increasingly expensive as context accumulates.
arXiv:2608. 12476v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Long-term agent memory is usually treated as select--store--retrieve, but retrieval does not decide whether contradictory, superseded, retracted, deleted, or stale records may support an outgoing claim.
Long-running LLM agents keep valuable state resident on GPUs: KV caches, request schedulers, communication state, and sometimes online adapters. Losing this state after a GPU or communicator failure can discard minutes to hours of work, yet existing recovery mechanisms either restart the whole serving stack or require application-specific checkpoint logic inside every attention and runtime component.
arXiv:2606. 06240v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Persistent memory for an LLM agent is a write-heavy substrate: every belief update is a versioned write, and a new claim may contradict a stored one.
arXiv:2608. 12599v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-turn dialogues let users revoke constraints as easily as impose them, but revocation does not reliably take effect: models keep enacting withdrawn requirements (occasionally beneath comments asserting their removal), a failure we call \emph{behavioral relapse}, or revocation inertia.
Software engineering (SWE) agents resolve repository-level issues through long trajectories that grow increasingly expensive as context accumulates. Failed runs tend to be longer and exhibit redundant exploration or looping, suggesting that some failures may be detectable before completion.