mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

CordisBench: Can Language Models Reason About Component Lifecycles in Dynamic Agent Harnesses?

arXiv 2609.01600 ↗First posted 1 Sep 2026cs.CL cs.AIcited by 0

On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning for agents, planning and code

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

Dynamic agent harnesses let language models change the software that shapes their own execution. This flexibility brings a new reasoning burden: a local plugin change can propagate through dependencies and cleanup. We introduce CordisBench, a 1,200-question benchmark of this lifecycle reasoning. It combines a controlled formal setting with programs executed against Cordis, a runtime that manages component dependencies and cleanup, and asks models to identify affected components, predict state after a specified teardown order, determine which conditions hold under all or some orders, and choose reconfigurations that succeed when executed. Across these tasks, we evaluate three efficiency-oriented models at low reasoning effort with 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, or 32 relevant interactions, using deterministic task-specific scoring. Models usually handle small systems well but grow less reliable as more interactions become relevant, especially when predicting final state and when reasoning across teardown orders. Additional inference effort recovers marked gains for some models. The cost is nontrivial: on our 16-interaction subset, GPT-5.6 Luna uses nearly 3,000 reasoning tokens per question at medium effort. For these controlled instances, that cost is avoidable: an independent finite reference semantics agrees with Cordis execution on every observation and action outcome used for scoring across all 528 executable questions.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 13 of its 18 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Sep 2026.

Builds on

13 of 18 references.

Closest ancestors · 2

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026Rethinking the Evaluation of Harness Evolution for Agents14 Jul
  2. 2025Evaluating Program Semantics Reasoning with Type Inference in System F28 Sep

Other references · 11

  1. 2026Agentic Harness Engineering: Observability-Driven Automatic Evolution of Coding-Agent Harnessescited by 119
  2. 2026Self-Harness: Harnesses That Improve Themselvescited by 79
  3. 2026Evo-Bench: Can Language Models Improve Agent Harness?cited by 8
  4. 2025LLMs Lean on Priors, Not Programming Language Semanticscited by 5
  5. 2026Hierarchical Self-Improvement: A Framework for Task-Specific Evolvable Agent Harnessescited by 4
  6. 2023An Axiomatic Theory for Reversible Computationcited by 2
  7. 2025Assessing Large Language Models in Comprehending and Verifying Concurrent Programs across Memory Modelscited by 2
  8. 2026CONCUR: Benchmarking LLMs for Concurrent Code Generationcited by 2
  9. 2026ScratchLens: Lens-Parametric Behavioral Equivalence for Scratch Programscited by 2
  10. 2025TempoBench: Reasoning Execution Without Causal Attribution Is Just Simulationcited by 1
  11. 2026(How) Do Large Language Models Understand High-Level Message Sequence Charts?cited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026PluginRSI: Recursive Improvement of Agent Harnesses with Reusable Plugins
  2. 2026Grow the Harness, Not the Context: From Strategy-Free Scaffolds to Reusable Specialist Agents
  3. 2026Looped Language Models Improve Compositional Tool Calling
  4. 2026Adapting the Interface, Not the Model: Runtime Harness Adaptation for Deterministic LLM Agents
  5. 2026Harnesses for Inference-Time Alignment over Execution Trajectories
  6. 2026Composing Task-specific Agent Harnesses at Test Time with Reusable Primitives
  7. 2026Verify Smarter, Evolve Further: Efficient Harness Evolution through Behavior-Aware Verification
  8. 2026Vestrum: Improving Agent Harnesses by Adapting Their Verification, Structure and Memory