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
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
arXiv:2609.22243v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Input-conditioned neural interventions raise a runtime question: what persists when one behavioral specification admits multiple actions whose validity...
By Xianliang Zeng, Zhanzhan Zhao
arXiv:2606. 15474v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Continuous evaluation of LLM products relies on a strong LLM judge treated as ground truth: a cheap monitor scores every interaction and a team is paged when the score drifts down.
By Yitao Li
The paper introduces a self‑healing harness that enforces admission control over language‑model agents’ self‑modifications. The harness runs a Detect‑Notice‑Heal‑Validate loop, allowing agents to propose rule changes that are only granted persistent authority after demonstrating improvement on a failure case without regressing on protected cases. Across 16 benchmark runs, the harness rejected many locally beneficial proposals that caused collateral regressions, while improving task‑completion scores and reliability.
By Sina Tayebati, Divake Kumar, Nastaran Darabi, Ranganath Krishnan, Amit Ranjan Trivedi
The paper introduces a runtime assurance layer for language‑model agents operating in operational workflows, addressing the evaluation–execution gap where approvals may become invalid after changes in facts, evidence, policy, or authority. The proposed state‑bound configuration separates probabilistic measurement from deterministic adjudication, binds execution allowances to the basis of an approval, invalidates them upon logged changes, and rechecks admissibility at dispatch. In a scripted 42‑case replay, the approach identified 15 later‑invalidated approvals that a non‑re‑evaluating comparator missed, holding 14 affected actions before dispatch and compensating one landed effect.
By Jayesh Bhadane, Ramachandra Yerramsetti, Rajesh Gupta, Sumit Kumar