Organizations: Institute of Artificial Intelligence, China Telecom (TeleAI) · 2Shanghai Jiao Tong University
Abstract
Agent revisions expose a fundamental correctness--efficiency trade-off during concurrent execution. Discarding ongoing work preserves latest-version correctness but wastes progress that may remain valid, whereas reusing prior work preserves efficiency but risks propagating stale state into outputs and tool effects. Existing recovery strategies resolve this trade-off in an imbalanced way with coarse-grained policies: they either favor efficiency by allowing potentially stale work to continue, or favor correctness by restarting the workflow or recomputing a linear suffix from the earliest conflict, thereby discarding unaffected progress. We present \textsc{Revise}, a validity-guided runtime for fine-grained recovery in structured agent workflows. When a revision arrives, \textsc{Revise} first intersects its delta with recorded data and control dependencies and propagates the resulting impact through the partially executed DAG to identify affected work. It then stops invalid work, preserves validity-established progress beyond the earliest conflict, and recomputes only the affected region. Incomplete provenance conservatively expands recovery, while reused results are revalidated before commit. Analysis of real coding-agent traces show online recovery opportunities: 118 sessions retain observable work before a queued later message is delivered; across 167 overlapping assistant responses, enqueue-to-completion overlap reaches 56.55~s at p95. Across 300 challenging revision/commit executions, \textsc{Revise} matches a latest-version oracle with no stale outputs or effects. On unmodified LangGraph and LLMCompiler applications using Qwen3-14B, it reduces model calls by 40.6--56.0% relative to full restart and by 31.3--43.6% relative to suffix recomputation. Under serving pressure, it further reduces revision-to-correct-completion tokens by 13.26% and improves SLO goodput by 3.07--5.43%.
Current LLM agents operate under an implicit but universal assumption: execution is a transaction -- the user submits a request, the agent works in isolation, and only upon completion does the dialogue resume. This forces users into a binary choice: wait for a potentially incorrect output, or interrupt and lose all progress. We reject this assumption and propose the stream paradigm, in which agent execution and user intervention are concurrent, interleaved processes sharing a bidirectional channel. We formalize this paradigm through a reversibility taxonomy that classifies every agent action as Idempotent, Reversible, Compensable, or Irreversible, and arrive at a core conclusion: an agent's flexibility is bounded by its reversibility. We prove that conflicting compensable actions impose unavoidable adaptation costs and that conflicting irreversible actions make full specification satisfaction impossible -- these costs are properties of the action space, not of the algorithm. Guided by this insight, we present the Revision Absorber, a reactive algorithm based on the Earliest-Conflict Rollback rule that is structurally optimal under mild assumptions. Experiments on StreamBench with real LLM agents validate all predictions: the Absorber matches the quality of a brute-force full-restart baseline while wasting an order of magnitude fewer steps of already-completed work, turning mid-execution revisions from a dead-end into a first-class interaction.
Generate--test--revise loops are common in coding agents, but repetition alone provides no reliability guarantee. We study the gap between finding a correct patch and retaining, verifying, and submitting it. A sealed five-seed study over 30 HumanEval repairs produces 900 three-revision trajectories. Under forced revision, current correctness with current traces falls from 0.820 after one revision to 0.673 after two, although ever-correct rises to 0.847. Two common-state studies use 2,430 branches from identical frozen programs to remove post-treatment risk-set bias. In a prespecified 14B replication, stale traces harm 34/135 correct starts versus 4/135 with current traces, a 22.2-point increase (task-cluster 95% CI [8.9,37.0], exact Holm p=0.0337). A prospective 540-rollout policy eliminates observed correct-start harm but reduces wrong-start repair and fails its joint criterion. Repository experiments over 24 bugs and four coder stacks expose floor effects and component heterogeneity without Holm-significant effects. We therefore separate admission, preservation, grounded certification, competence, and liveness. We derive an evidence-bound typed loop contract and instantiate its mechanically enforceable subset in a reference implementation that binds verifier evidence to exact code states, preserves verified checkpoints, and emits auditable admission receipts. The implementation is an executable specification and conformance artifact, not evidence of improved repair competence or calibrated verifier dependence.
When a structured tool agent fails mid-execution, the runtime faces a dilemma: replaying the entire task is safe but wasteful, while restoring from a local checkpoint is efficient but can leave committed downstream work tied to an upstream history that no longer exists. This tension is acute in commitment-sensitive settings, where rollback targets a single failed instance yet downstream consumers have already acted on its output. Existing recovery approaches provide mechanical rollback but no criterion for whether a local restore remains semantically valid after downstream commitment. We formalize this gap as semantic recoverability and address it in DART, a modular runtime that localizes the failed instance, certifies semantically recoverable boundaries of that instance, aligns checkpoints to those boundaries, and selects an admissible restore point that preserves committed downstream work under dependency and effect constraints-or blocks otherwise. Across three LLM-driven domains and external validation on a LangGraph-based substrate, DART correctly recovers all evaluated commitment-sensitive cases where baseline local recovery fails, and a five-domain safety audit finds no unsafe admitted rollbacks. These results show that controller legality does not imply semantic validity, and that sound local recovery requires an explicit admissibility check.