CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning May 25, 2026

DART: Semantic Recoverability for Structured Tool Agents

arXiv AI Archived May 25, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2605.23311v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: 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

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence [Submitted on 22 May 2026] DART: Semantic Recoverability for Structured Tool Agents Ke Yang, Panpan Li, Zonghan Wu, Kejin Xu, Huaxi Huang, Xiaoshui Huang 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. Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) Cite as: arXiv:2605.23311 [cs.AI]   (or arXiv:2605.23311v1 [cs.AI] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.23311 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Ke Yang [view email] [v1] Fri, 22 May 2026 07:30:43 UTC (157 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.AI < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-05 Change to browse by: cs References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Export BibTeX Citation Bookmark Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Demos Related Papers About arXivLabs Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv AI
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    May 25, 2026
    Archived
    May 25, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗