Beyond the Clock: Measuring the Value of Adaptive Revision

It has long been recognized that humans have the ability to switch between fast, reactive decision-making and slower, deliberative planning. In this paper, we study the question of how to learn this ability, known as meta-reasoning, in artificial agents. We model reactive decision-making as a policy that directly maps state observations to actions. Such policies can be trained with reinforcement learning (RL) or imitation learning, but may generalize poorly outside of their training distribution. Alternatively, model-based decision-time planning is more likely to produce good actions across a broader set of states but requires additional computation time, which delays acting. In this work, we introduce an RL method for training a meta-reasoning policy that allocates computation by conditioning on a reactive-policy uncertainty score. This score enables it to predict when the reactive policy is likely to perform poorly and when planning is needed. We conduct an empirical study on motion planning and navigation environments, showing that this design enables the meta-reasoning policy to learn when the reactive policy provides a good-enough action versus when decision-time planning is needed. Additionally, we show that our design enables the meta-agent to shift toward fully reactive control as the reactive policy improves.

Adaptive agents do not always regulate under the same timing conditions. Sometimes stabilization can begin before a disturbance has fully entered the internal state; at other times the agent can only recover after disruption has taken hold. A simple expectation is that an agent moving between these conditions should behave like a weighted average of the two fixed cases: the more time spent in reactive recovery, the greater the regulatory burden. This paper shows that expectation can fail. In a simulated adaptive agent with retained state history, at an operating point where sustained reactive control is more costly than sustained anticipatory control, intermittent access to anticipatory control reduces the mean regulatory burden below the value predicted by a fixed-mode mixture. The effect appears under both periodic and stochastic switching schedules: losing anticipatory access does not simply dilute its benefit, and restoring it intermittently can reorganize the later regulatory burden. High-statistics runs (N = 1000 matched replicates per schedule) resolve a negative nonlinear switching penalty across every tested schedule. The effect is small but consistent: about half a percent of the mean gain, with 63-68% of replicates falling below zero. Late-window diagnostics reveal no unresolved upward accumulation of regulatory burden. The result identifies a design-relevant timing principle. In history-dependent adaptive systems, the burden of remaining organized is not set only by how much time an agent spends in each mode; the order in which disturbance and recovery enter the state can change the subsequent burden. Intermittent anticipatory control may therefore act less like a partial failure of regulation than like a mechanism for reducing the long-term burden of recovery.

Industrial agentic AI systems increasingly exhibit a gap between prototype capability and production deployment. In particular, adaptive agents may generate plausible outputs while remaining difficult to verify under non-determinism, confidentiality constraints, limited context, and weak observability. This paper formulates a bounded verification protocol for adaptive agentic controllers represented by finite symbolic rules, explicit diagnostic predicates, explanation logs, and held-out re-evaluation. The central research question is: when an adaptive agentic controller is represented through finite rules, explicit diagnostic predicates, explanation logs, and held-out re-evaluation, which classes of controller failure can be detected, locally repaired, or rejected without relying on unrestricted human-in-the-loop judgment? The proposed framework treats the controller as a finite revisable object. Diagnostic failures are mapped to predefined rule-level edits, including rule addition, rule deletion, and priority revision. Repaired controllers are then evaluated on held-out simulation seeds or cloned initial states. Experiments in a stylized financially constrained inventory-control benchmark show three outcomes: resource-induced failures that remain non-repairable by one rule edit, partial repairs that are rejected because they violate thresholds or guardrails, and a local one-step repair of an order-volatility failure induced by removing a smoothing rule. The contribution is methodological and provides a simulation-compatible procedure for testing whether specific controller-level failures can be made observable, explainable, locally revisable, and empirically re-tested under controlled conditions.