# Towards Agentic Runtime Healing

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.01055 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.01055/

## Key facts

- Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 13 of its 40 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 2 Aug 2024.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Software engineering coding agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/software-engineering-coding-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 13 of 13)

- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.09685/) (2021)
- [Mistral 7B](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06825/) (2023)
- [Code Llama: Open Foundation Models for Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.12950/) (2023)
- [LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07974/) (2024)
- [Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01210/) (2023)
- [OpenHands: An Open Platform for AI Software Developers as Generalist Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.16741/) (2024)
- [RepoCoder: Repository-Level Code Completion Through Iterative Retrieval and Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.12570/) (2023)
- [Pruning and Quantization for Deep Neural Network Acceleration: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.09671/) (2021)
- [Robustness, Security, Privacy, Explainability, Efficiency, and Usability of Large Language Models for Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07506/) (2024)
- [Compressing Pre-trained Models of Code into 3 MB](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.07120/) (2022)
- [LExecutor: Learning-Guided Execution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.02343/) (2023)
- [Preliminary Results of a Survey on the Use of Self-Adaptation in Industry](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.06816/) (2022)

## Built on by (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [Code as Agent Harness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.18747/) (2026)
- [Vibe Coding vs. Agentic Coding: Fundamentals and Practical Implications of Agentic AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.19443/) (2025)
- [PALADIN: Self-Correcting Language Model Agents to Cure Tool-Failure Cases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.25238/) (2025)
- [SHIELDA: Structured Handling of Exceptions in LLM-Driven Agentic Workflows](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.07935/) (2025)
- [SandboxEval: Towards Securing Test Environment for Untrusted Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.00018/) (2025)
- [Creating and Repairing Robot Programs in Open-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.18893/) (2024)
- [Retrofitting Code Using LLMs to Support Exceptional Behavior](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.10397/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Self-healing systems have long been a focus of research, aiming to enable software to recover from unexpected runtime errors without human intervention. Traditional approaches rely on predefined heuristic rules, such as reusing error handlers or rolling back to checkpoints, but these methods struggle to adapt to the diverse range of runtime errors. The emergence of Large Language Models offers a new opportunity to address this challenge. Leveraging their ability to understand and generate code and natural language, we propose using LLMs to dynamically generate error-handling strategies in real time, tailored to specific runtime contexts such as error messages and program states. We demonstrate the feasibility of this approach by designing such a framework, Healer, and empirically showing that it can handle runtime errors with a high success rate. When an unanticipated runtime error occurs, Healer leverages its internal LLM to generate bespoke error-handling code. The generated healing code is then executed to produce a corrected program state, allowing the program to continue execution with minimal disruption. We evaluate Healer across four code datasets and three state-of-the-art LLMs (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and CodeQwen-7B), where GPT-4 can successfully recover from 72.8% of runtime errors, underscoring the promise of LLMs in this domain. Despite these promising results, challenges remain, particularly regarding the trustworthiness of LLM-generated code and its integration into existing systems. We mention potential solutions, such as safety checks and Healer-aware programming, to mitigate risks and ensure reliable operation. This work represents the first step toward agentic runtime healing, paving the way for more adaptive, resilient, and self-healing software systems.