# Binding Drift in Multi-Step Tool-Augmented Agents

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.18316 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.18316/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 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 27 of its 32 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 17 Jul 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, 27 of 27)

- [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)
- [Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03442/) (2023)
- [Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.03172/) (2023)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [Voyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.16291/) (2023)
- [WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13854/) (2023)
- [AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08155/) (2023)
- [ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.16789/) (2023)
- [τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12045/) (2024)
- [Gorilla: Large Language Model Connected with Massive APIs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.15334/) (2023)
- [AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.03688/) (2023)
- [CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.11738/) (2023)
- [MultiWOZ -- A Large-Scale Multi-Domain Wizard-of-Oz Dataset for Task-Oriented Dialogue Modelling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.00278/) (2018)
- [Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandbox](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.15817/) (2023)
- [Towards Scalable Multi-domain Conversational Agents: The Schema-Guided Dialogue Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.05855/) (2019)
- [Cognitive Architectures for Language Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.02427/) (2023)
- [Autoregressive Entity Retrieval](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.00904/) (2020)
- [MINT: Evaluating LLMs in Multi-turn Interaction with Tools and Language Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.10691/) (2023)
- [End-to-end Neural Coreference Resolution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.07045/) (2017)
- [Transferable Multi-Domain State Generator for Task-Oriented Dialogue Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.08743/) (2019)
- [TripPy: A Triple Copy Strategy for Value Independent Neural Dialog State Tracking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.02877/) (2020)
- [TRAJECT-Bench:A Trajectory-Aware Benchmark for Evaluating Agentic Tool Use](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.04550/) (2025)
- [Neural Entity Linking: A Survey of Models Based on Deep Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.00575/) (2020)
- [Chaos Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1702.05843/) (2017)
- [ToolChoiceConfusion: Causal Minimal Tool Filtering for Reliable LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.06284/) (2026)
- [Entity Binding Failures in Tool-Augmented Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.30531/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Phantom Merge: When Your Large Language Model Agents Pick One but Tell You About Another](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.16141/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Tool-augmented language-model agents execute multi-step workflows over external systems, resolving an entity once and then acting on it across subsequent steps. Prior work shows that in single-step actions, agents select the correct tool but bind it to the wrong entity 24-26% of the time. We study what happens to entity bindings over time: do they stay correct, silently drift to a different entity, or, if wrong from the start, propagate and compound? We formalize binding drift (correct at step 1, wrong later) as distinct from error propagation (wrong at step 1, carried forward), and score them on disjoint workflow sets so the two cannot be conflated. In a controlled multi-step testbed (200 workflows, 580 entity-binding-scored steps, four enterprise domains, eight model backends spanning small to frontier), we find: (1) under controlled error injection, an entity lock (the intuitive "persist the first binding" fix) amplifies wrong actions from 907 to 2,746 (3.0x; bootstrap 95% CI [2.8, 3.3]), because it faithfully carries the seeded wrong entity into every later step; (2) the amplification reaches 8.5x on the most affected model (Claude Opus 4.5); (3) a practical LLM-based re-verifier (a single cheap second model call re-reading the original instruction) reduces wrong actions by 79% (0.21x; CI [0.18, 0.25]), closing the gap to within 1 percentage point of an oracle upper-bound (0.20x); and (4) in the natural (non-injected) setting, baseline agents drift on 18% of eligible workflows, with the per-step error rate rising across steps. Persistence and re-verification are not interchangeable: a defense that eliminates drift can worsen propagation, and a practical re-verifier nearly matches oracle recovery.