# Recoverability as a System Primitive for Long-Horizon AI Agents

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.13672 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.13672/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 15 of its 21 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 12 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 15 of 15)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [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)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (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)
- [MemGPT: Towards LLMs as Operating Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08560/) (2023)
- [OSWorld: Benchmarking Multimodal Agents for Open-Ended Tasks in Real Computer Environments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.07972/) (2024)
- [GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12983/) (2023)
- [ToolSandbox: A Stateful, Conversational, Interactive Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Tool Use Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.04682/) (2024)
- [Evaluation and Benchmarking of LLM Agents: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.21504/) (2025)
- [Where LLM Agents Fail and How They can Learn From Failures](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.25370/) (2025)
- [Crab: A Semantics-Aware Checkpoint/Restore Runtime for Agent Sandboxes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.28138/) (2026)
- [Hell or High Water: Evaluating Agentic Recovery from External Failures](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.11027/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

AI agents can be interrupted while editing files, calling tools, or carrying out multi-step tasks. Restarting repeats completed work, but continuing from unverified or outdated progress can carry earlier errors forward. A saved state is not necessarily a suitable place to resume. We introduce recoverability as a system primitive that makes reuse an explicit decision: select a supported starting point and a permitted recovery action, or withhold automatic continuation. Its behavioral contract binds that choice to supporting evidence, execution, and independent checks. A reference architecture connects persistence, validation, and control, with complementary runtime instances testing distinct responsibilities. Four deterministic and 20 paired file challenges demonstrate that accurate restoration and successful completion can conceal disallowed starting points. Progress controls attribute retained work to shared restoration. Event-time tests show that permission must also constrain the action, and that independently held policy evidence can expose violations even after an effect occurs. These findings establish why recovery decisions need their own evaluation, beyond restored bytes and final task success. Within supplied policies and a declared trust model, the contribution is a common, testable interface for retaining justified progress and making the conditions for its reuse explicit and enforceable.