When Agents Do Not Stop: Uncovering Infinite Agentic Loops in LLM Agents
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
LLM agents increasingly rely on iterative execution to solve tasks through planning, tool use, state updates, and agent collaboration. While this design enables flexible automation, it also creates a new class of failures: an agent may repeatedly execute model calls, tools, workflow transitions, or agent handoffs when the feedback path is not effectively bounded. We call this problem Infinite Agentic Loops (IALs). IALs are not ordinary programming loops; they arise from the interaction between agent logic, framework semantics, runtime observations, and termination mechanisms. Such failures can amplify a single request into long running model and tool execution, causing cost exhaustion, model denial of service, context growth, and repeated external side effects. We propose IAL-Scan, a static analysis tool for detecting IAL failures in real-world LLM agent projects. IAL-Scan abstracts heterogeneous agent code into a framework independent Agent IR, builds an Agentic Loop Dependence Graph (ALDG) to recover explicit and framework induced feedback paths, and checks whether these paths can repeatedly reach costly or state growing operations without an effective bound. We evaluate IAL-Scan on 6,549 LLM agent repositories. It reports 74 potential findings, among which manual review confirms 68 IAL failures across 47 projects, achieving 91.9% precision.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 18 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Jul 2026.
Builds on
18 of 31 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 17
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
- 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Toolscited by 4,072
- 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,064
- 2023A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agentscited by 2,203
- 2024Agent Security Bench (ASB): Formalizing and Benchmarking Attacks and Defenses in LLM-based Agentscited by 341
- 2024Personal LLM Agents: Insights and Survey about the Capability, Efficiency and Securitycited by 257
- 2024IRIS: LLM-Assisted Static Analysis for Detecting Security Vulnerabilitiescited by 100
- 2024Large Model Based Agents: State-of-the-Art, Cooperation Paradigms, Security and Privacy, and Future Trendscited by 26
- 2024LLM App Store Analysis: A Vision and Roadmapcited by 12
- 2024On the (In)Security of LLM App Storescited by 12
- 2026AgentSCOPE: Evaluating Contextual Privacy Across Agentic Workflowscited by 9
- 2026Agentproof: Static Verification of Agent Workflow Graphscited by 8
5 more
- 2026Agent Audit: A Security Analysis System for LLM Agent Applicationscited by 8
- 2025QLCoder: A Query Synthesizer For Static Analysis of Security Vulnerabilitiescited by 7
- 2026AgentRaft: Automated Detection of Data Over-Exposure in LLM Agentscited by 6
- 2026Towards Security-Auditable LLM Agents: A Unified Graph Representationcited by 4
- 2026Argus: Reorchestrating Static Analysis via a Multi-Agent Ensemble for Full-Chain Security Vulnerability Detectioncited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 6.
6 papers.
- 2026Feedback That Backfires: Why Small Language Model Agents Repeat the Call They Just Watched Failcited by 2
- 2026Graph Engineering in the Era of LLM Agents: From Individual Intelligence to System Intelligencecited by 1
- 2026Transcript-Managed Transformers: Monotone Multi-Agent Collapse and Universality with Two Pop-Enabled Transcriptscited by 0
- 2026The Unreliable Progress Bar: Can LLM Agents Reliably Report Task Progress Throughout Execution?cited by 0
- 2026Compiled Agency: Frontier General-Purpose Coding Agents Build Winning Game Players from Bare Interaction - from Flappy Bird to StarCraft II and Civilizationcited by 0
- 2026LLM Parkinsonism: Executive-Control Failure, Token-Inefficient Persistence, and an Uncertainty-Aware Global Executive Control Architecture for Autonomous Language-Model Agentscited by 0
- 2026LLM Parkinsonism: Executive-Control Failure, Token-Inefficient Persistence, and an Uncertainty-Aware Global Executive Control Architecture for Autonomous Language-Model Agents25 Sep 2026
- 2026The Unreliable Progress Bar: Can LLM Agents Reliably Report Task Progress Throughout Execution?8 Sep 2026
- 2026Feedback That Backfires: Why Small Language Model Agents Repeat the Call They Just Watched Fail24 Aug 2026
- 2026Graph Engineering in the Era of LLM Agents: From Individual Intelligence to System Intelligence21 Aug 2026
- 2026Transcript-Managed Transformers: Monotone Multi-Agent Collapse and Universality with Two Pop-Enabled Transcripts31 Jul 2026
- 2026Compiled Agency: Frontier General-Purpose Coding Agents Build Winning Game Players from Bare Interaction - from Flappy Bird to StarCraft II and Civilization17 Jul 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026From Agent Loops to Structured Graphs:A Scheduler-Theoretic Framework for LLM Agent Execution
- 2026LLM-as-Code: Agentic Programming for Agent Harness
- 2025Where LLM Agents Fail and How They can Learn From Failures
- 2026AgentRewind: Recoverable Execution for Long-Horizon LLM Agents
- 2026AgentFixer: From Failure Detection to Fix Recommendations in LLM Agentic Systems
- 2026Who Broke the System? Failure Localization in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems
- 2026When Agentic Executions Fail: Detecting and Localizing Runtime Faults from Telemetry
- 2026Verified Tool Calls Improve LLM Agent Reliability Under Non-Atomic Failures