ContractRL introduces a contract-constrained sequential repair protocol for structured tool calls, modeling verifier-guided JSON repair as a bounded decision process. The policy observes candidate data, verifier feedback, JSON pointers, repair history, and budget, using a contract-derived action mask to filter invalid operations before a deterministic validator applies changes. Compared to Patch‑SFT and full regeneration, ContractRL achieves higher semantic success (0.9362 vs. 0.9076 and 0.9148) while generating fewer tokens (34.4 vs. 44.9 and 137.2), and policy optimization further improves success rates.
arXiv:2607. 00269v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLMs, solvers, and agent teams increasingly generate workflow actions, repairs, and plans, but a generated action may be syntactically valid yet stale, infeasible, conflicting, or destructive of the evidence that triggered a repair.
arXiv:2606. 02326v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Hard constraints are usually treated as terminal vetoes: once a candidate violates a requirement, the learned rule rejects it and any repair is handled outside the decision semantics.
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users revoke constraints as easily as impose them, but revocation does not reliably take effect: models keep enacting withdrawn requirements (occasionally beneath comments asserting their removal), a failure we call \emph{behavioral relapse}, or revocation inertia.
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.
arXiv:2607. 24604v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generate--test--revise loops are common in coding agents, but repetition alone provides no reliability guarantee.
arXiv:2609.34879v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Tool agents use large language models to act through external tools, yet successfully executed calls can still leave user requests unfulfilled. Too...
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:2607. 03386v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agentic AI systems are increasingly used to edit, refine, and repair decision policies, but evaluating these edits is difficult when per-state expert action labels are unavailable.
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.
arXiv:2609.13728v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Historical Linux kernel patches capture defect knowledge that applies beyond their original repair sites. Recent work has shown that large language m...
Verify-repair loops are a standard means for large language model (LLM) agents to correct faulty plans in code generation, mathematical reasoning, and tool use. When both the verifier and the repairer are noisy, repair can damage already-correct plans, and reported acceptance keeps rising while true validity falls, so existing methods lack a principled basis for deciding when repair should stop.
arXiv:2605. 17450v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As software systems grow increasingly complex, automated vulnerability repair (AVR) remains difficult because the materials available to a repair system are usually failure artifacts rather than repair guidance.