arXiv:2607. 18316v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Tool-augmented language-model agents execute multi-step workflows over external systems, resolving an entity once and then acting on it across subsequent steps.
arXiv:2606. 17182v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent LLM systems share state through memory stores, vector indices, and tool registries.
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users revoke constraints as easily as impose them, but revocation does not reliably take effect: models keep enacting withdrawn requirements (occasionally beneath comments asserting their removal), a failure we call \emph{behavioral relapse}, or revocation inertia.
arXiv:2608. 07952v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Tool-augmented LLM agents can harbor implicit state that persists across sessions, activates through events, and propagates across agent boundaries---largely invisible to standard debugging.
arXiv:2606. 30531v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Tool-augmented language-model agents are often evaluated by whether they select the correct tool, produce valid API arguments, and complete the requested task.
arXiv:2608. 08239v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM routers promise efficiency by matching each request to the cheapest adequate model, and are increasingly applied per step inside multi-step agents.
arXiv:2607. 25400v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly entrusted with natural-language workflow instructions (e.
arXiv:2608. 04066v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: How do you verify a long-horizon agent when its own state and self-reports are exactly what you cannot trust?
arXiv:2607. 11098v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Tool-using LLM agents are mostly evaluated assuming all tools work.
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:2606. 01416v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Tool-augmented large language model (LLM) agents rely on orchestration layers that coordinate planning, retrieval, tool invocation, validation, memory, and recovery.
arXiv:2606. 10241v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Autonomous improvement loops are hard to trust because the improvement process is usually external scaffolding bolted onto the agent: failures go unlogged, diagnoses cannot be replayed, and promote-or-discard decisions land in a side database rather than the agent's own history.
arXiv:2608. 02680v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Tool-using language-model agents repeatedly rediscover procedures they have already executed, producing traces that mix reusable structure with retries, exploration, accidental ordering, and repeated lookups.