DART: Semantic Recoverability for Structured Tool Agents
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Tool learning and function calling
Abstract (arXiv)
When a structured tool agent fails mid-execution, the runtime faces a dilemma: replaying the entire task is safe but wasteful, while restoring from a local checkpoint is efficient but can leave committed downstream work tied to an upstream history that no longer exists. This tension is acute in commitment-sensitive settings, where rollback targets a single failed instance yet downstream consumers have already acted on its output. Existing recovery approaches provide mechanical rollback but no criterion for whether a local restore remains semantically valid after downstream commitment. We formalize this gap as semantic recoverability and address it in DART, a modular runtime that localizes the failed instance, certifies semantically recoverable boundaries of that instance, aligns checkpoints to those boundaries, and selects an admissible restore point that preserves committed downstream work under dependency and effect constraints-or blocks otherwise. Across three LLM-driven domains and external validation on a LangGraph-based substrate, DART correctly recovers all evaluated commitment-sensitive cases where baseline local recovery fails, and a five-domain safety audit finds no unsafe admitted rollbacks. These results show that controller legality does not imply semantic validity, and that sound local recovery requires an explicit admissibility check.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers 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 15 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 May 2026.
Builds on
15 of 33 references.
Closest ancestors · 2
Same direction, newest first
- 2025PALADIN: Self-Correcting Language Model Agents to Cure Tool-Failure Cases25 Sep
- 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools9 Feb
Other references · 13
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
- 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,064
- 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agentscited by 1,211
- 2024TravelPlanner: A Benchmark for Real-World Planning with Language Agentscited by 385
- 2025Where LLM Agents Fail and How They can Learn From Failurescited by 118
- 2024On the Resilience of LLM-Based Multi-Agent Collaboration with Faulty Agentscited by 92
- 2025SagaLLM: Context Management, Validation, and Transaction Guarantees for Multi-Agent LLM Planningcited by 58
- 2026AgentRx: Diagnosing AI Agent Failures from Execution Trajectoriescited by 53
- 2026Rethinking Failure Attribution in Multi-Agent Systems: A Multi-Perspective Benchmark and Evaluationcited by 21
- 2025Agent-SAMA: State-Aware Mobile Assistantcited by 12
- 2025Autonomous Control Leveraging LLMs: An Agentic Framework for Next-Generation Industrial Automationcited by 8
- 2025ALAS: A Stateful Multi-LLM Agent Framework for Disruption-Aware Planningcited by 5
1 more
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 9.
9 papers.
- 2026From Agent Traces to Trust: A Survey of Evidence Tracing and Execution Provenance in LLM Agentscited by 29
- 2026Resume Means Resume: A Machine-Checked Conformance Contract for Checkpoint, Interrupt, and Resume Semantics in Workflow Persistence Layerscited by 2
- 2026Safe to Resume? Breaking Execution Continuity of Agent Execution via Rollbackcited by 2
- 2026Graph Engineering in the Era of LLM Agents: From Individual Intelligence to System Intelligencecited by 1
- 2026Rollback the World, Keep the Reflection: Rollback-Induced Reflection for Long-Horizon LLM Agentscited by 1
- 2026Aborted but Not Forgotten: KV-Cache Retention Breaks Rollback Consistency in Language Agentscited by 0
- 2026REVISE: Validity-Guided Recovery for Online Revisions in Agent Workflowscited by 0
- 2026Where Does Exactly-Once Live? Model, Harness, and Tool-Contract Effects on Duplicate Side Effects in LLM Agentscited by 0
- 2026Towards Reliable AI Data Scientists: Data Agents with Workflow Harnessescited by 0
- 2026Towards Reliable AI Data Scientists: Data Agents with Workflow Harnesses28 Sep 2026
- 2026Where Does Exactly-Once Live? Model, Harness, and Tool-Contract Effects on Duplicate Side Effects in LLM Agents24 Sep 2026
- 2026Rollback the World, Keep the Reflection: Rollback-Induced Reflection for Long-Horizon LLM Agents16 Sep 2026
- 2026REVISE: Validity-Guided Recovery for Online Revisions in Agent Workflows1 Sep 2026
- 2026Safe to Resume? Breaking Execution Continuity of Agent Execution via Rollback29 Aug 2026
- 2026Graph Engineering in the Era of LLM Agents: From Individual Intelligence to System Intelligence21 Aug 2026
- 2026Aborted but Not Forgotten: KV-Cache Retention Breaks Rollback Consistency in Language Agents16 Aug 2026
- 2026Resume Means Resume: A Machine-Checked Conformance Contract for Checkpoint, Interrupt, and Resume Semantics in Workflow Persistence Layers4 Aug 2026
- 2026From Agent Traces to Trust: A Survey of Evidence Tracing and Execution Provenance in LLM Agents3 Jun 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026ToolMisuseBench: An Offline Deterministic Benchmark for Tool Misuse and Recovery in Agentic Systems
- 2026Beyond Function Calling: Benchmarking Tool-Using Agents under Tool-Environment Unreliability
- 2026ACRFence: Preventing Semantic Rollback Attacks in Agent Checkpoint-Restore
- 2026Recoverability Has a Law: The ERR Measure for Tool-Augmented Agents
- 2026When Tools Fail: Benchmarking Dynamic Replanning and Anomaly Recovery in LLM Agents
- 2026Cordon: Semantic Transactions for Tool-Using LLM Agents
- 2026ParaRecover: A Process-Level Benchmark for Error Localization and Recovery in Parallel Tool-Use Agents
- 2026Crab: A Semantics-Aware Checkpoint/Restore Runtime for Agent Sandboxes