DART: Semantic Recoverability for Structured Tool Agents
arXiv AIArchived 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?)