AstronOS: A Unified Execution Model and Runtime for Long-Horizon Agentic Systems
Organizations: iFLYTEK Co., Ltd., Hefei, China · iFLYTEK Co., Ltd., Hefei, Anhui, China.
Abstract
Agentic systems often organize execution and state around a single conversation, model invocation, or agent instance, even when real work spans many calls and stages. We introduce a unified execution model that maintains a work item's persistent identity and versioned authoritative state across calls. Each step receives input scoped to a specific state version and new material; a result advances state only after validation and recording. We implement selected paths of this model in AstronOS using Cases, Tasks, and Scenario Packs across central and local execution. We compare five complete strategies for carrying an established software-version update plan into a fresh model session: rereading original materials, replaying full history, deterministic text summary, deterministic JSON, and the AstronOS runtime-mediated handoff. Ten controlled tasks are run under all five strategies with three repetitions, yielding 150 included executions. On the single-stage reference family, strategies perform similarly. In the primary three-stage A-C batch, AstronOS passes the frozen scorer in 14 of 15 executions, compared with 0 of 15 for rereading and 2 of 15 for full-history replay; later non-interleaved summary and JSON batches each pass 0 of 15. AstronOS has lower attempt-accounted model-token cost per passing execution, while requiring more execution-window time per attempt. These results associate the complete AstronOS condition with higher end-to-end pass rates across fresh sessions in this benchmark, at a measurable time cost.
Figures & tables
| Boundary | Separation | Observable requirement |
|---|---|---|
| Identity | enduring work item vs. session or executor | Every step and transition names exactly one work item. |
| Authority | accepted state vs. history or candidate output | Later steps identify the accepted state on which they rely. |
| Visibility | step-scoped view vs. full state or transcript | Prepared input identifies its state basis and new material. |
| Commit | executor output vs. authoritative transition | Only a successfully committed change creates a successor state. |
| Model object | Runtime representation | Observable fields |
|---|---|---|
| Work item | Case and Case Snapshot | Case identifier; status; workflow state; snapshot revision |
| Step | Analysis Run and, when needed, a dispatched Task | Case identifier; run/Task identifiers; input revision on Analysis Runs; goal and expected result |
| Step input | Product Context Bundle or the experiment-specific step input, plus stage-local material | objective; prior accepted result; current material; optional bundle sources |
| Candidate | Run or Task result before interpretation | status; text/JSON body; artifact metadata; run/Task identifier |
| Accepted change | Interpreted stage result merged into the snapshot | new snapshot revision and a recorded stage-result event |
| Obligation | Pinned implementation evidence | Exercised in condition C |
|---|---|---|
| O1 | Case/Task identity linkage | Observed in the audited trace |
| O2 | Analysis Run snapshot-revision binding | Not established for the C Task path; no universal Task base version |
| O3 | Current-Task, lease, and Scenario result fences | Observed on the selected path |
| O4 | Product Context Bundle source lineage | Implemented, but not exercised by this benchmark |
| O5 | Revision-conditioned latest-row merge | Audited on a no-conflict path; concurrency/rebase not tested |
| Relative time | Audited event |
|---|---|
| 0.0 s | Create Case C1 and snapshot r1. |
| 1.5–1.8 s | Create and dispatch T1 (stage 1); record the transport-level Task acknowledgement and archive hashes for the current-stage input and continuity payload. |
| 18.8 s | T1 returns a candidate result; the terminal pipeline interprets and admits it; snapshot advances to r2. |
| 19.6–19.8 s | Dispatch T2 (stage 2) with T1’s runtime-admitted result and the structured decision artifact. |
| 33.6–34.1 s | T2 returns; snapshot advances through r3 and the deterministic checkpoint to r4. |
| 34.9–35.1 s | Dispatch T3, the checkpoint-propagation Task, with T2’s result and the checkpoint receipt. |
| ID | Condition | Information available at a later stage |
|---|---|---|
| A | Re-investigation | Current-stage material; the executor may re-read the same synthetic sources with the same tools when it needs earlier information. |
| B | Full history | Current-stage material plus all previous visible prompts, model outputs, and tool observations in their original order. |
| C | AstronOS runtime-mediated state handoff | A hash-pinned current-stage package plus the runtime-admitted prior-stage result, structured decision artifact, and applicable checkpoint receipt, materialized through the implemented Case/Task/Scenario runtime path. |
| D | Rolling summary | Current-stage material plus a deterministic prose summary generated from the latest runtime-admitted decision by a frozen template. |
| E | Lightweight JSON | Current-stage material plus a deterministic fixed-field JSON record generated from the latest runtime-admitted decision by a frozen function. |
| ID | Condition | Passes /30 | Instances 1 pass /10 | Tokens/attempt | Attempt-accounted tokens/pass |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | Re-investigation | 15/30 | 5/10 | 59,268 | 118,537 |
| B | Full history | 16/30 | 7/10 | 67,726 | 126,986 |
| C | AstronOS handoff | 28/30 | 10/10 | 65,616 | 70,303 |
| D | Rolling summary | 15/30 | 5/10 | 60,763 | 121,526 |
| E | Lightweight JSON | 14/30 | 5/10 | 60,083 | 128,749 |
| Family | ID | Passes /15 | Tokens/attempt | Attempt-accounted tokens/pass |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | A | 15/15 | 33,792 | 33,792 |
| B | 14/15 | 33,809 | 36,224 | |
| C | 14/15 | 20,784 | 22,268 | |
| D | 15/15 | 33,742 | 33,742 | |
| E | 14/15 | 33,723 | 36,132 | |
| GAR | A | 0/15 | 84,745 | – |
| Contrast | C | Baseline | Difference [95% bootstrap sensitivity interval] |
|---|---|---|---|
| C vs. A | 93.3% | 50.0% | 43.3 [10.0, 76.7] pp |
| C vs. B | 93.3% | 53.3% | 40.0 [13.3, 66.7] pp |
| C vs. D | 93.3% | 50.0% | 43.3 [10.0, 76.7] pp |
| C vs. E | 93.3% | 46.7% | 46.7 [16.7, 76.7] pp |
| ID | Execution window/attempt | Archived harness field/attempt | Execution window/pass | Archived harness field/pass |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 42.3 | 42.3 | 84.7 | 84.7 |
| B | 57.2 | 57.2 | 107.2 | 107.2 |
| C | 73.8 | 78.5 | 79.1 | 84.1 |
| D | 33.2 | 33.2 | 66.4 | 66.4 |
| E | 32.1 | 32.1 | 68.9 | 68.9 |
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Instance | Family | A | B | C | D | E |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GAR-101 | GAR | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| GAR-102 | GAR | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| GAR-103 | GAR | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| GAR-104 | GAR | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| GAR-105 | GAR | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| S-101 | S | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Family | ID | Turns | Prompt chars | Input tokens | Output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | A | 2.00 | 6,881 | 33,335 | 456 |
| B | 2.00 | 6,881 | 33,350 | 459 | |
| C | 1.00 | 19,985 | 20,054 | 730 | |
| D | 2.00 | 6,881 | 33,330 | 412 | |
| E | 2.00 | 6,881 | 33,326 | 397 | |
| GAR | A | 4.80 | 17,117 | 83,494 | 1,251 |
| ID | Classify | Order | Test status | Stages | Checkpoint | Output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| B | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| C | 15 | 14 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 |
| D | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| E | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Family | ID | Correct-run execution window | Execution window/pass | Archived harness field/pass |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | A | 24.24 | 24.24 | 24.24 |
| B | 28.20 | 30.85 | 30.85 | |
| C | 23.83 | 25.62 | 30.34 | |
| D | 18.34 | 18.34 | 18.34 | |
| E | 18.59 | 19.61 | 19.61 | |
| GAR | A | – | – | – |
Long-Horizon Agent Tasks
Long-Horizon Agent Tasks study how AI agents plan, remember, and act reliably across extended, multi-step interactions.
See all 193 papers