mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

FIRE: Failure-Informed Runtime Engineering for Reliable Language-Model Agents

arXiv 2609.26048 ↗First posted 22 Sep 2026cs.AI cs.CL cs.SEcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents

Abstract (arXiv)

Language-model agents often reach a working solution and then fail to consistently deliver it. We study runtime policies: targeted natural-language instructions and action denials applied by the agent harness at states that preceded observed failures, without changing model weights or the user prompt. With this, keeping capability constant, we observe a meaningful unlock in delivered reliability. Across the complete 87-task Terminal-Bench 2.1 suite, with two attempts per task, policies increase repeated success (pass^2) in all three GPT-5.6 tiers: 50.6% to 54.0% for Luna, 55.2% to 60.9% for Terra, and 64.4% to 73.6% for Sol. Sol's best-of-two success changes by 1.2 points while repeated success rises by 9.2, showing that policies chiefly convert reachable solutions into dependable delivery. We further cover 14 tasks under Terra's frozen portfolio. Policy-guided Terra reaches 71.4%, compared with 64.3% for unassisted Sol, at about half the cost, demonstrating how engineering around models could unlock dependability for a use case. To isolate the mechanism we run a randomized five-arm experiment: real policies reach 61% on eligible tasks, versus 39% without a policy, 36% with a timing-matched sham, and 39 to 43% with generic verification or reconsideration. The intended corrective behavior appears in 22 of 24 coded policy attempts, against at most 14 in any other arm. Runtime policies are therefore a practical reliability layer: they make capabilities an agent already possesses substantially more repeatable.

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 18 of its 84 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Sep 2026.

Builds on

18 of 84 references.

References · 18

  1. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
  2. 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,317
  3. 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
  4. 2024Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameterscited by 1,928
  5. 2024τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domainscited by 1,280
  6. 2024OSWorld: Benchmarking Multimodal Agents for Open-Ended Tasks in Real Computer Environmentscited by 1,134
  7. 2023Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yetcited by 965
  8. 2026Terminal-Bench: Benchmarking Agents on Hard, Realistic Tasks in Command Line Interfacescited by 515
  9. 2023Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandboxcited by 514
  10. 2023NeMo Guardrails: A Toolkit for Controllable and Safe LLM Applications with Programmable Railscited by 347
  11. 2024ToolSandbox: A Stateful, Conversational, Interactive Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Tool Use Capabilitiescited by 272
  12. 2024When Can LLMs Actually Correct Their Own Mistakes? A Critical Survey of Self-Correction of LLMscited by 230
6 more
  1. 2025AgentSpec: Customizable Runtime Enforcement for Safe and Reliable LLM Agentscited by 196
  2. 2020With Little Power Comes Great Responsibilitycited by 138
  3. 2025Progent: Securing AI Agents with Privilege Controlcited by 121
  4. 2024GuardAgent: Safeguard LLM Agents by a Guard Agent via Knowledge-Enabled Reasoningcited by 113
  5. 2025Holistic Agent Leaderboard: The Missing Infrastructure for AI Agent Evaluationcited by 83
  6. 2025DynaGuard: A Dynamic Guardian Model With User-Defined Policiescited by 16

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Self-Healing Agentic Orchestrators for Reliable Tool-Augmented Large Language Model Systems
  2. 2025How Do LLMs Fail In Agentic Scenarios? A Qualitative Analysis of Success and Failure Scenarios of Various LLMs in Agentic Simulations
  3. 2026Ecdysis: Efficient and Effective Training of Runtime Harnesses for LLM Agents
  4. 2026GuardianAgentBench: Where Agents Fail and How to Guard Them
  5. 2026Loud Failures, Quiet Failures: Fault Detection and Recovery in Tool-Using Language Model Agents
  6. 2026Beyond the Leaderboard: A Synthesis of Tool-Use, Planning, and Reasoning Failures in Large Language Model Agents
  7. 2026Silent Failure in LLM Agent Systems: The Entropy Principle and the Inevitable Disorder of Autonomous Agents
  8. 2026MAS-FIRE: Fault Injection and Reliability Evaluation for LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems