Self-Reflective APIs: Structure Beats Verbosity for AI Agent Recovery
arXiv:2606. 05037v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When an AI agent calls an API and hits a validation error, it needs more than what went wrong -- it needs what to do next.
When an AI agent calls an API and hits a validation error, it needs more than what went wrong -- it needs what to do next. A self-reflective API returns, on validation failure, a machine-readable recovery\_feedback.
arXiv:2606. 05037v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When an AI agent calls an API and hits a validation error, it needs more than what went wrong -- it needs what to do next.
arXiv:2607. 28908v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reflection, the ability to revisit and revise prior reasoning, is central to how humans improve their answers.
arXiv:2604. 16706v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Automated evaluation of tool-using large language model (LLM) agents is widely assumed to be reliable, yet this assumption is rarely validated against human annotation.
arXiv:2606. 19808v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Test-time reasoning is increasingly used as a serving-time control knob, but extra reasoning is not uniformly valuable: it can repair failed attempts, waste compute on already-correct answers, or introduce harmful answer changes.
arXiv:2606. 31478v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Autonomous research agents can now draft hypotheses, write code, run experiments, and produce papers, but they remain brittle when experiments fail.
arXiv:2607. 26117v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Self-repair - returning a failed program to the model together with its test output and asking for a correction - is a standard component of code agents, and is almost always evaluated against a baseline that does not retry at all.
arXiv:2606. 09863v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM agents can fail silently by asserting task completion when the environment state shows otherwise.
arXiv:2606. 14211v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLMs are increasingly deployed as agents that interact with external environments and observe feedback such as execution results, error messages, and tool outputs.
arXiv:2607. 20379v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Natural-language autoencoders score explanations of hidden activations by reconstruction: an explanation is deemed faithful if the activation can be regenerated from it.
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.
arXiv:2607. 16215v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing guardrail systems for large language model agents operate as binary classifiers that block unsafe content, leaving organizations to discard failing outputs and retry from scratch.
arXiv:2606. 28430v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Benchmarks are widely used to evaluate task completion by Large Language Models (LLMs), but this approach has accumulated construction-validity problems, and a passing score may not show whether the requested task was delivered.