Incremental Consistency Execution for Autonomous Intelligent Systems
Organizations: KunlunMeta
Abstract
Long-horizon autonomous intelligent systems rely on heterogeneous components such as large language models, databases, external APIs, and rule engines, while their external states continuously change during execution. Re-executing the entire workflow after every change introduces substantial redundant computation. This paper proposes an incremental consistency execution method based on task fact contracts, field-level dependency masks, and state perturbation result invariant domains. After an initial verified execution, the system constructs conservative invariant domains for critical inputs and uses them to determine whether downstream results can be safely renewed without re-invoking expensive components. When re-execution is required, only the smallest affected output fields are recomputed, and an equivalence barrier prevents unnecessary downstream propagation. A submission-time version consistency gate further ensures the safety of side-effecting actions. Experiments on industrial fault diagnosis, enterprise analytics, and LLM-based multi-tool assistants show that the proposed method significantly reduces expensive component calls and end-to-end latency while maintaining high consistency and low incorrect-reuse rates.
Figures & tables
| Task family | Dominant external change | Dominant component cost | Risk of incorrect reuse |
|---|---|---|---|
| Industrial fault diagnosis | Sensor sample refresh, motor-speed change | Model inference on GPU | Medium |
| Enterprise analytics reporting | New database rows, budget-table update | LLM summary generation | Low to medium |
| LLM multi-tool assistant | External API response, document version | Tool call + LLM reasoning | High for payment actions |
| Metric | Full re-execution | Coarse-grained cache | Proposed method |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expensive calls per change | 1.00 | 0.84 | 0.18 |
| End-to-end latency (ms) | 380 | 120 | 65 |
| Renewal validation pass rate | N/A | 91.4% | 98.6% |
| Submission-time gate block precision | N/A | N/A | 100% |
| False propagation rate | 0% | 3.8% | 0.4% |