mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Self-Healing Agentic Orchestrators for Reliable Tool-Augmented Large Language Model Systems

arXiv 2606.01416 ↗First posted 31 May 2026cs.AIcited by 7

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Tool-augmented large language model (LLM) agents rely on orchestration layers that coordinate planning, retrieval, tool invocation, validation, memory, and recovery. In these systems, failures arise not only from model errors, but also from orchestration-level issues such as tool timeouts, malformed arguments, stale context, contradictory evidence, retry loops, and unverified intermediate outputs. This paper presents a self-healing agentic orchestrator that treats reliability as a bounded runtime control problem. The orchestrator maps observable failure signals to inferred failure classes, selects targeted recovery actions under explicit budgets, verifies recovered trajectories, and records observability traces. We evaluate the approach on a 100-task controlled fault-injection benchmark against static workflow, retry-only, ReAct-style, and full-replanning baselines. Self-healing achieves 98.8% task success, compared with 94.5% for retry-only and 93.8% for full replanning. A matched recovery-budget sweep shows that self-healing outperforms retry-only and full replanning at every tested budget, with the largest gap under a single recovery attempt: 94.0% versus 85.3% and 88.2%, respectively. Under a controlled semantic silent-failure setting, verifier-guided self-healing reduces silent failures to 0.0%, while non-verifying baselines return wrong-but-plausible outputs more often. A compact model-in-the-loop validation shows that the same recovery mechanism can operate when a live tool-calling model performs tool selection, argument generation, and answer synthesis over local fault-injected tools. These results provide controlled evidence that failure-aware, budgeted, and verification-guided orchestration improves reliability and diagnosability in tool-augmented LLM systems.

Key facts. Cited by 7 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 8 of its 11 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 May 2026.

Builds on

8 of 11 references.

Closest ancestors · 2

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2023ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIs31 Jul
  2. 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools9 Feb

Other references · 6

  1. 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,160
  2. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
  3. 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,064
  4. 2023A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agentscited by 2,203
  5. 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agentscited by 1,211
  6. 2026ReliabilityBench: Evaluating LLM Agent Reliability Under Production-Like Stress Conditionscited by 31

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 7.

7 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026A Self-Healing Framework for Reliable LLM-Based Autonomous Agents
  2. 2025PALADIN: Self-Correcting Language Model Agents to Cure Tool-Failure Cases
  3. 2026Verified Tool Calls Improve LLM Agent Reliability Under Non-Atomic Failures
  4. 2026ToolMisuseBench: An Offline Deterministic Benchmark for Tool Misuse and Recovery in Agentic Systems
  5. 2026Loud Failures, Quiet Failures: Fault Detection and Recovery in Tool-Using Language Model Agents
  6. 2024Towards Agentic Runtime Healing
  7. 2026Beyond Function Calling: Benchmarking Tool-Using Agents under Tool-Environment Unreliability
  8. 2026One Readout, Many Repairs: Diffusion-Guided Hierarchical Search for Tool-Agent Repair