arXiv:2607. 05458v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are usually improved by changing prompts, models, or hand-written workflows, while the execution harness around the model is treated as fixed infrastructure.
Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
Large language model (LLM) agents are usually improved by changing prompts, models, or hand-written workflows, while the execution harness around the model is treated as fixed infrastructure. We argue that this harness is itself a learnable control layer.
arXiv:2608. 05446v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Long-horizon LLM agents increasingly rely on external execution support to maintain state, track progress, invoke tools, verify outcomes, and reuse experience across interactions.
arXiv:2601. 03555v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Training reliable tool-augmented agents remains a significant challenge, largely due to the difficulty of credit assignment in multi-step reasoning.
arXiv:2608. 10357v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Long-horizon tool-using agents must reason over user goals, domain policies, tool calls, simulator state, and delayed verifiable rewards.
arXiv:2607. 25415v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Production LLM agents are increasingly assembled from a frozen model wrapped in a harness: a prompt template, a tool set, a memory/retrieval layer, a planning strategy, and a verification policy.
arXiv:2606. 03892v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Training LLMs to orchestrate multi-step tool calls is held back by three coupled obstacles: realistic stateful execution environments are costly to build, synthetic training queries are often detached from the server's actual state (so the generated tool calls fail to execute), and recall-based RL rewards incentivize verbose tool-calling patterns.