mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Recoverability Has a Law: The ERR Measure for Tool-Augmented Agents

arXiv 2601.22352 ↗First posted 29 Jan 2026cs.LG cs.AIcited by 1

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Tool learning and function calling

Abstract (arXiv)

Language model agents often appear capable of self-recovery after failing tool call executions, yet this behavior lacks a formal explanation. We present a predictive theory that resolves this gap by showing that recoverability follows a measurable law. To elaborate, we formalize recoverability through Expected Recovery Regret (ERR), which quantifies the deviation of a recovery policy from the optimal one under stochastic execution noise, and derive a first-order relationship between ERR and an empirical observable quantity, the Efficiency Score (ES). This yields a falsifiable first-order quantitative law of recovery dynamics in tool-using agents. We empirically validate the law across five tool-use benchmarks spanning controlled perturbations, diagnostic reasoning, and real-world APIs. Across model scales, perturbation regimes, and recovery horizons, predicted regret under the ERR-ES law closely matched observed post-failure regret measured from Monte Carlo rollouts, within delta less than or equal to 0.05. Our results reveal that recoverability is not an artifact of model scale or architecture, but a governed property of interaction dynamics, providing a theoretical foundation for execution-level robustness in language agents.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Tool learning and function calling, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 7 of its 15 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Jan 2026.

Builds on

7 of 15 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2023API-Bank: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Tool-Augmented LLMs14 Apr

Other references · 6

  1. 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,287
  2. 2017Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attackscited by 6,326
  3. 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,064
  4. 2019Theoretically Principled Trade-off between Robustness and Accuracycited by 1,510
  5. 2021Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokenscited by 1,278
  6. 2023CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquingcited by 751

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026When Harnesses Lose the Signal: Causal Evaluation of Recovery in LLM Agents
  2. 2026Loud Failures, Quiet Failures: Fault Detection and Recovery in Tool-Using Language Model Agents
  3. 2026ToolMisuseBench: An Offline Deterministic Benchmark for Tool Misuse and Recovery in Agentic Systems
  4. 2026DART: Semantic Recoverability for Structured Tool Agents
  5. 2026Feedback That Backfires: Why Small Language Model Agents Repeat the Call They Just Watched Fail
  6. 2026Beyond Function Calling: Benchmarking Tool-Using Agents under Tool-Environment Unreliability
  7. 2026Self-Healing Agentic Orchestrators for Reliable Tool-Augmented Large Language Model Systems
  8. 2025PALADIN: Self-Correcting Language Model Agents to Cure Tool-Failure Cases