Context Assembly as the Controlled Variable: A Control-Theoretic View of Harness Policies for Frozen LLM Agents
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
A growing body of 2026 work applies control theory to LLM agents: Lyapunov-certified stability for tool-mediated controllers (Prinos et al., "Stable Agentic Control", 2026), sample-complexity bounds for sparse policies over massive discrete tool universes (Majumdar, "Sparse Agentic Control", 2026), and regulatory-control decompositions of multi-agent systems into auditable feedback loops (Nogueira and Skogestad, 2026). We do not claim to introduce control theory to LLM agents -- that ship has sailed. Our narrower claim is about what the controlled variable is. Prior work controls tool selection, inter-agent message routing, or the agent's raw action stream. We instead treat context assembly itself -- which prompt template, which few-shot demonstrations, how much retrieved context, how many planning/verification passes -- as the controlled variable, learned online by a contextual bandit or REINFORCE policy sitting outside a frozen model. This paper develops the formal decomposition (inner frozen policy πθ, outer context policy πφ), gives a stability argument for the online controller in the sense used by Zhang et al. (2026) (non-decreasing expected reward under bounded policy change), and reports an uncertainty-calibration analysis of the controller's own confidence against realized task outcomes. The applied counterpart to this paper instantiates the same controller across three domains and two model providers and releases the dataset, trajectory logs, and a deployment recipe; here we focus on the formal framing and the stability/uncertainty evidence a control-theoretic claim requires.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 6 of its 7 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Jul 2026.
Builds on
6 of 7 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 5
- 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,860
- 2026Meta-Harness: End-to-End Optimization of Model Harnessescited by 248
- 2026A Systematic Approach to Multi-Agent AI from Advanced Regulatory Control Theory: Safe and Auditable LLM Operator Agents for Process Controlcited by 4
- 2026Stable Agentic Control: Tool-Mediated LLM Architecture for Autonomous Cyber Defensecited by 3
- 2026Sparsity Is Necessary: Polynomial-Time Stability for Agentic LLMs in Large Action Spacescited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026A Control System, a Dataset, and a Recipe for Making Frozen LLM Agents Learn a Domain
- 2026Learning to Control LLM Agent Harnesses with Offline Reinforcement Learning
- 2026Ghost in the Context: Policy-Carriage Integrity in LLM Agents
- 2026Harness Engineering for Predictable Agentic Systems: An Empirical Study of Deterministic Execution Constraints
- 2026Beyond Skill Evolution: Self-Evolving Context Management Policies for Long-Horizon Agent Harnesses
- 2026Callability Is Not Operability: Controlled Interface Interventions for LLM Agents
- 2026Calibration Is Not Control: Why LLM-Agent Oversight Needs Intervention
- 2026Control-Data Flow Separation: Stable Prompt Optimization in Multi-Agent LLMs