Recoverability Has a Law: The ERR Measure for Tool-Augmented Agents
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
Other references · 6
- 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,287
- 2017Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attackscited by 6,326
- 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,064
- 2019Theoretically Principled Trade-off between Robustness and Accuracycited by 1,510
- 2021Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokenscited by 1,278
- 2023CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquingcited by 751
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026When Harnesses Lose the Signal: Causal Evaluation of Recovery in LLM Agents
- 2026Loud Failures, Quiet Failures: Fault Detection and Recovery in Tool-Using Language Model Agents
- 2026ToolMisuseBench: An Offline Deterministic Benchmark for Tool Misuse and Recovery in Agentic Systems
- 2026DART: Semantic Recoverability for Structured Tool Agents
- 2026Feedback That Backfires: Why Small Language Model Agents Repeat the Call They Just Watched Fail
- 2026Beyond Function Calling: Benchmarking Tool-Using Agents under Tool-Environment Unreliability
- 2026Self-Healing Agentic Orchestrators for Reliable Tool-Augmented Large Language Model Systems
- 2025PALADIN: Self-Correcting Language Model Agents to Cure Tool-Failure Cases