ContrAgent is a contract‑based framework that provides symbolic temporal supervision for large language model agents. It records an agent’s tool‑call sequence as a trace of checkable predicates and formalizes desired behaviors with assume‑guarantee contracts expressed in linear temporal logic over finite traces (LTLf). Each contract is compiled into a deterministic finite automaton that both gates actions online and evaluates recorded traces offline, enabling deterministic, reproducible verdicts and significantly lower per‑call latency compared to existing LLM‑judge and rule‑based guardrail baselines.
By Yifeng Xiao, Pierluigi Nuzzo
Large language model (LLM) agents augmented by tools can automate complex, multi-step tasks, such as web navigation, code generation, and workflow orchestration, by acting on external systems through...
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users revoke constraints as easily as impose them, but revocation does not reliably take effect: models keep enacting withdrawn requirements (occasionally beneath comments asserting their removal), a failure we call \emph{behavioral relapse}, or revocation inertia.
By Haoyuan Zhu
arXiv:2605. 09692v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Autonomous language agents increasingly expose traces, memories, plans and constraints, but existing evaluations rarely test whether these state variables are bound to final actions.
By Xiao Jia
arXiv:2609. 04875v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Long-running LLM agents are stateful: beyond the transcript they accrete compressed summaries, plaintext memory, pending tool plans, and, under every serving API, a KV cache.
By Chao Yao, Yangbo Wei, Zhen Huang, Junhong Qian, Chenle Chen, Shaoqiang Lu, Chen Wu, Lei He
The paper introduces PlanFence, a dependency-scoped action‑validation protocol for distributed large language model (LLM) agent teams. PlanFence requires plans to cite the exact public records they rely on, and executors validate only those records that could affect the pending action, replanning or blocking if validation is incomplete. In 30 controlled live workflows, a freshness‑only executor always acted on obsolete plans, whereas PlanFence completed all tasks without invalid actions, demonstrating controlled safety and system‑cost benefits.
By Evan Chen, Shiqiang Wang, Christopher G. Brinton