Mnemosyne: Agentic Transaction Processing for Validating and Repairing AI-generated Workflows
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
LLMs increasingly generate workflow actions and repairs that may be well formed yet stale, infeasible, conflicting, or destructive of their own evidence. We introduce Agentic Transaction Processing (ATP), which treats generated actions as untrusted proposals until deterministic admission accepts them under an executable constraint set C. Its two-sided principle is: a proposal is not truth, and no proposal foresees every disruption. Anything may propose, but only the runtime admits and commits; unforeseen disruptions trigger bounded reactive repair whose output re-enters admission. Mnemosyne realizes ATP with an append-only transition log, effective-state projection, dependency-safe compensation, and active contract records. Under stated assumptions and relative to C, we prove four safety properties (authority separation, serial-equivalent generative admission, evidence-preserving repair, and obligation containment) and establish bounded reactive repair. Across nine safety benchmarks and a four-case Temporal SDK comparison, ATP rejects every targeted violation while admitting valid work. A matched data-size sweep measures 5.2-6.6% incremental throughput cost over the same local durable commit path and exposes local saturation. In a companion scheduling harness, local repair edits nearly an order of magnitude fewer operations than global recompute; a 12-scenario interruption stress test rejects every stale recovery candidate without losing observations or producing invalid commits. Two bounded pilots route 80 proposals from four heterogeneous LLMs through the same gate with zero invalid commits; 24 of 40 mid-execution proposals are admitted and 16 are rejected, including four explicit safety rejections.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 9 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Jun 2026.
Builds on
9 of 37 references.
References · 9
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
- 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,276
- 2023Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behaviorcited by 3,568
- 2023Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Modelscited by 3,211
- 2023A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agentscited by 2,242
- 2023Voyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Modelscited by 2,191
- 2023Language Agent Tree Search Unifies Reasoning Acting and Planning in Language Modelscited by 574
- 2025SagaLLM: Context Management, Validation, and Transaction Guarantees for Multi-Agent LLM Planningcited by 60
- 2026Trivium: Temporal Regret as a First-Class Objective for Causal-Memory Controllerscited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 8.
8 papers.
- 2026Cognitive Admission Control: Risk-Conditioned Assurance for Consequential Actions in Agentic Distributed Systemscited by 3
- 2026The Illusion of Independent Quorums: Epistemic Fault Domains and Correlated Cognitive Failures in Agentic Quorumscited by 2
- 2026When AI Agents Commit: Cognitive Serializability Across Data, Evidence, Policy, and Authoritycited by 2
- 2026Looping Is Not Reliability: State-Bound Evidence and Typed Revision Contracts for Agentic Code Repaircited by 1
- 2026From Version Conflicts to Decision Conflicts: Selective Revalidation for Long-Running AI Agentscited by 1
- 2026TRW: TRACE-RealWorld---An Auditable Consistency Contract for World Models as Materialized Viewscited by 0
- 2026HALO: Heterogeneous Admission through Localized Obligations for Safe Agentic Executioncited by 0
- 2026Janus: Evidence-Before-Effect Sagas and Offline-Verifiable Provenance for Agentic LLMscited by 0
- 2026Janus: Evidence-Before-Effect Sagas and Offline-Verifiable Provenance for Agentic LLMs29 Sep 2026
- 2026Cognitive Admission Control: Risk-Conditioned Assurance for Consequential Actions in Agentic Distributed Systems14 Sep 2026
- 2026From Version Conflicts to Decision Conflicts: Selective Revalidation for Long-Running AI Agents7 Sep 2026
- 2026The Illusion of Independent Quorums: Epistemic Fault Domains and Correlated Cognitive Failures in Agentic Quorums24 Aug 2026
- 2026HALO: Heterogeneous Admission through Localized Obligations for Safe Agentic Execution30 Jul 2026
- 2026When AI Agents Commit: Cognitive Serializability Across Data, Evidence, Policy, and Authority28 Jul 2026
- 2026Looping Is Not Reliability: State-Bound Evidence and Typed Revision Contracts for Agentic Code Repair27 Jul 2026
- 2026TRW: TRACE-RealWorld---An Auditable Consistency Contract for World Models as Materialized Views24 Jul 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Diagnosis-Driven Automatic Repair for Agentic Workflow via Symbolic Inference
- 2026GraphFlow: An Architecture for Formally Verifiable Visual Workflows Enabling Reliable Agentic AI Automation
- 2026Correct Is Not Governed: Provenance Integrity in Agentic Workflows
- 2025Trustworthy AI in the Agentic Lakehouse: from Concurrency to Governance
- 2026Maat: Independent Deterministic Contract-Based Governance for Multi-Agent LLM Workflows
- 2025Safe, Untrusted, "Proof-Carrying" AI Agents: toward the agentic lakehouse
- 2026GraphBit: A Graph-based Agentic Framework for Non-Linear Agent Orchestration
- 2026Authenticated Workflows: A Systems Approach to Protecting Agentic AI