mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

The Dual-State Architecture for Reliable LLM Agents

arXiv 2512.20660 ↗First posted 18 Dec 2025cs.LG cs.AI cs.SEcited by 3

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents

Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models deployed as code generation agents exhibit stochastic behavior incompatible with the deterministic guarantees required by software engineering. We formalize the Dual-State Action Pair (DSAP), an execution primitive that couples stochastic generation with deterministic post-condition verification. Guard functions act as sensing actions that project opaque LLM outputs onto observable workflow state, enabling a dual-state decomposition: finite, deterministic S_workflow paired with infinite, stochastic S_env. We prove that for epsilon-capable generators, failure probability P(fail) <= (1-epsilon)^R_max -> 0. To prevent naive O(R^K) retry explosion across multi-step workflows, we introduce a three-level recovery hierarchy: context refinement (retry within step), informed backtracking (stagnation detection with cascade invalidation and context injection to upstream steps), and human escalation. Experimental validation across 13 LLMs (1.3B-15B parameters) on three diagnostic probes demonstrates reliability gains of up to 66 percentage points at 1.2-2.1x baseline cost. Recovery mechanism evaluation on 99 SWE-Bench Pro instance-arm pairs (Qwen3-Coder-Next) demonstrates 100% context injection effectiveness (upstream output changed in all 71 escalation events) with step-specific recovery asymmetry -- 37.5% for test generation vs. 0% for patch generation -- and 0% end-to-end patch production, establishing the boundary between execution architecture and plan synthesis: execution recovery is necessary but not sufficient for autonomous software engineering.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 5 of its 18 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Dec 2025.

Builds on

5 of 18 references.

References · 5

  1. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,302
  2. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
  3. 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
  4. 2024LLMs Can't Plan, But Can Help Planning in LLM-Modulo Frameworkscited by 178
  5. 2023On the Planning Abilities of Large Language Models (A Critical Investigation with a Proposed Benchmark)cited by 85

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.

3 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Verified Tool Calls Improve LLM Agent Reliability Under Non-Atomic Failures
  2. 2026Verification as an Architectural Layer for LLM Agents: A V-Model Design, and a Pilot Study of Its Deterministic Core
  3. 2025DualGauge: Automated Joint Security-Functionality Benchmarking of Specification-Only Code Generation by LLMs and Coding Agents
  4. 2025Architecting Resilient LLM Agents: A Guide to Secure Plan-then-Execute Implementations
  5. 2026Constraint Decay: The Fragility of LLM Agents in Backend Code Generation
  6. 2026Memory as Infrastructure: Reliability Engineering for Persistent Agent Memory in Months-Long LLM-Assisted Development
  7. 2025CodeCRDT: Observation-Driven Coordination for Multi-Agent LLM Code Generation
  8. 2026Self-Healing Agentic Orchestrators for Reliable Tool-Augmented Large Language Model Systems