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.
By Zihao Zheng, Jiayu Long, Baichuan Li, Junyi Yao
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.
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.
By Chenyu Wang, Yunbo Lyu, Junda He, Zhou Yang, Chenxing Zhong, Yaniv Harel, David Lo
arXiv:2607. 26313v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agentic systems act, so a defect in the evidence they retrieve becomes a wrong action with a currency cost.
By Gaston Besanson
arXiv:2610.41025v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: When a language-model agent fails a multi-step task, can another model find the decisive mistake and fix it with a single action? We introduce ReplayRC...
By Jeremy Canale, Fabien Soulis
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."
By Jiapeng Li
The paper introduces loss‑conditioned state execution, a model‑agnostic technique that decides whether to apply a world model’s proposed state change or keep the current state based on whether the change reduces downstream loss. It formalizes state movability as the existence of a loss‑reducing feasible correction and constructs loss‑specific proposals from predictive distributions, executing them only when a groupwise lower confidence bound on loss improvement is positive. Experiments on forecasting and dynamics benchmarks show that the method accepts updates for a subset of cases, achieving lower bounded loss than persistence or always executing the proposal, and highlights that event predictability and loss‑based decisions must be evaluated separately.
By Jintao Xu, Zhengyu Chen, Ben Zhang, Yongzhi Qi, Jianshen Zhang
The paper introduces a framework for evaluating how large language model agents revise their success criteria after failures, defining five non‑compensatory conditions that must be met for a criterion revision to be considered valid. Using the CMB‑0.1 protocol, the authors test twelve cross‑domain scenarios across four system configurations, finding that no model trial satisfies all five conditions and highlighting specific failure modes such as zero‑state reconstruction and inadequate intervention sensitivity. They propose a more stringent trace‑anchored CMB‑0.4 protocol to better isolate and measure criterion revision in future studies.
By Guodong Xu
The paper proposes invalidation contracts to manage cached recovery suggestions in LLM agents, attaching version stamps and cacheability hints to each suggestion so stale entries can be evicted without trial and error. The protocol separates realized savings into validity (protocol‑dependent) and compliance (planner‑dependent), showing that row‑level invalidation can significantly improve first‑try compliance and recover a substantial portion of token costs across multiple models, while table‑level invalidation can be detrimental. The study evaluates the approach across seven models, three serving paths, two domains, and about 9,400 episodes, demonstrating deterministic validity and high eviction precision.
By Michael Wu, Arquimedes Canedo
arXiv:2609. 10954v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Continual world models must decide whether new data justify changing the model.
By Anqi Peter Li, Kaden Kim
The paper introduces a claim‑safe protocol for evaluating closed‑loop AI systems, consisting of three actions: Refuse, Decompose, and Refresh. It demonstrates the protocol in a simulator with 24 policy components and 1,440 held‑out cases, showing that abstention and stable false admission rates are low while providing detailed statistical diagnostics. The approach emphasizes that evaluation results should be tied to observable support and statistical calibration rather than a single PASS/FAIL label.
By Peiying Zhu, Sidi Chang
The paper investigates how AI agents can reliably recover from changes in authorization while executing tasks that involve external tools. It defines distinct obligations—checkpointing, permission to dispatch, evidence of external effects, and permission to reconcile—and evaluates them through a finite conformance study on 336 histories across multiple hosts, schedules, and provider contracts. The study demonstrates that all paired host cells produce identical outcomes and that various retry strategies (cached, revalidation, stable-key) successfully pass the majority of histories, while a component study of InfinityOS further isolates the impact of authority, contracts, and observations on recovery.
By Deekshith Marla, Kushagra Bhatnagar