mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Substrate-Aware AI Agents: Execution Context as a First-Class Input

arXiv 2609.05232 ↗First posted 4 Sep 2026cs.AIcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks

Abstract (arXiv)

Autonomous AI agents increasingly select actions in environments whose memory, execution-time, runtime, compute, and operational constraints determine what counts as a suitable plan. We call the absence of this execution context from an agent's planning state substrate blindness. We test this general proposition through numerical code generation, where selected implementation choices and operational consequences are directly observable. Three frontier model configurations--Anthropic Claude Opus 5, OpenAI GPT-5.6-Sol, and Google Gemini 3.7 Flash--generate code for a high-dimensional pairwise Euclidean-distance task either from the task alone or with a 128 MB RAM and 10.0 s wall-time contract. Contract disclosure reduced measured peak process memory in 13 of 14 executable index-aligned task-only versus contract-disclosed comparisons and reduced mean wall time in all three cohorts, making execution up to 3.1x faster. Across the audited corpus, disclosure produced structural code changes including bounded blocking, float32 retention, upper-triangle traversal, and in-place or memory-mapped buffers. At a tighter 96 MB contract, independently sampled contract-disclosed cohorts achieved correct-and-within-budget outcomes of 4/5 for Claude Opus 5, 5/5 for GPT-5.6-Sol, and 3/5 for Gemini 3.7 Flash, compared with task-only outcomes of 0/5, 1/5, and 0/5; cohort mean MaxRSS and wall time were 49-74% and 35-64% lower than their task-only references. These results establish a controlled proof of concept for substrate-aware agent planning: a minimal execution contract induces proactive structural adaptation in generated programs, shifting computation away from unconstrained allocations and substantially improving observed resource-time profiles before execution.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 6 of its 9 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Sep 2026.

Builds on

6 of 9 references.

References · 6

  1. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
  2. 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,276
  3. 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,442
  4. 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,373
  5. 2024EffiBench: Benchmarking the Efficiency of Automatically Generated Codecited by 64
  6. 2024Mercury: A Code Efficiency Benchmark for Code Large Language Modelscited by 35

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026The Agentic Company OS: Substrate Inversion for Sustained Enterprise Agent Deployment
  2. 2026Self-Evolving Coding Agents: From Digital Programs to Physical-World Intelligence
  3. 2026Do Agents Think Deeper? A Mechanistic Investigation of Layer-Wise Dynamics in Sequential Planning
  4. 2026PROJECTMEM: A Local-First, Event-Sourced Memory and Judgment Layer for AI Coding Agents
  5. 2026Do AI Agents Know When a Task Is Simple? Toward Complexity-Aware Reasoning and Execution
  6. 2026A Survey of Agent Memory in the Second Half: Towards Self-Evolving and Long-Horizon Agents
  7. 2026From Model Scaling to System Scaling: Scaling the Harness in Agentic AI
  8. 2026Self-Designed Evaluators and Warm Memory for Long-Horizon Agents