# DART: Semantic Recoverability for Structured Tool Agents

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.23311 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.23311/

## Key facts

- Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 14 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.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Tool learning and function calling](https://mlsanity.com/agents/tool-learning-and-function-calling/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 15 of 15)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04761/) (2023)
- [AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.03688/) (2023)
- [TravelPlanner: A Benchmark for Real-World Planning with Language Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01622/) (2024)
- [Where LLM Agents Fail and How They can Learn From Failures](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.25370/) (2025)
- [On the Resilience of LLM-Based Multi-Agent Collaboration with Faulty Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.00989/) (2024)
- [SagaLLM: Context Management, Validation, and Transaction Guarantees for Multi-Agent LLM Planning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.11951/) (2025)
- [AgentRx: Diagnosing AI Agent Failures from Execution Trajectories](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.02475/) (2026)
- [Rethinking Failure Attribution in Multi-Agent Systems: A Multi-Perspective Benchmark and Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.25001/) (2026)
- [PALADIN: Self-Correcting Language Model Agents to Cure Tool-Failure Cases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.25238/) (2025)
- [Agent-SAMA: State-Aware Mobile Assistant](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.23596/) (2025)
- [Autonomous Control Leveraging LLMs: An Agentic Framework for Next-Generation Industrial Automation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.07115/) (2025)
- [ALAS: A Stateful Multi-LLM Agent Framework for Disruption-Aware Planning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.12501/) (2025)
- [EvoFSM: Controllable Self-Evolution for Deep Research with Finite State Machines](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.09465/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [From Agent Traces to Trust: A Survey of Evidence Tracing and Execution Provenance in LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.04990/) (2026)
- [Resume Means Resume: A Machine-Checked Conformance Contract for Checkpoint, Interrupt, and Resume Semantics in Workflow Persistence Layers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.03836/) (2026)
- [Graph Engineering in the Era of LLM Agents: From Individual Intelligence to System Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.21156/) (2026)
- [Where Does Exactly-Once Live? Model, Harness, and Tool-Contract Effects on Duplicate Side Effects in LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.29095/) (2026)
- [Safe to Resume? Breaking Execution Continuity of Agent Execution via Rollback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.29381/) (2026)
- [Rollback the World, Keep the Reflection: Rollback-Induced Reflection for Long-Horizon LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.18304/) (2026)
- [Aborted but Not Forgotten: KV-Cache Retention Breaks Rollback Consistency in Language Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.15939/) (2026)
- [REVISE: Validity-Guided Recovery for Online Revisions in Agent Workflows](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.00643/) (2026)
- [Towards Reliable AI Data Scientists: Data Agents with Workflow Harnesses](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.35255/) (2026)
- [RippleCP: Measuring Counterfactual Checkpoint Advantage in Coding Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.09088/) (2026)

## 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.