arXiv:2610.41453v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Tool timeouts can leave AI agents facing ambiguous tool outcomes and partial execution: an action may have failed, committed or remained in flight while other workflow steps have already completed. We formulate evidence-guided task recovery over approved obligations, provider capabilities and states compatible with public evidence. A shared admissibility check handles key expiry, authorization timing, dependencies and residual effects; a terminal certificate separates actual goal satisfaction from publicly supported safe completion. The known-model implementation combines standard observation-contingent planning with a separately implemented effect-history adjudicator. In a finite study of 37 assignments, planning and three active controls each certify 28 completions; four saved synthetic fee units incur additional computation. A preregistered assignment-held-out comparison then evaluates planning advice against evidence prompting with two local model bundles. Across 58 paired units in 19 previously developed task families, advice certifies 30 completions versus 9, a 36.2-percentage-point difference (exact family sign-flip p=0.0078), using 272 proposals versus 399. All 116 trajectories pass independent replay. Both models exhibit a positive completion difference. The comparison measures the evaluated advice interface under a common shield; search-versus-rule advice requires a separate matched comparison. Unknown and handoff outcomes remain explicit, with guarantees tied to the declared provider capabilities rather than arbitrary third-party exactly-once execution.
Abstract: Tool timeouts can leave AI agents facing ambiguous tool outcomes and partial execution: an action may have failed, committed or remained in flight while other workflow steps have already completed. We formulate evidence-guided task recovery over approved obligations, provider capabilities and states compatible with public evidence. A shared admissibility check handles key expiry, authorization timing, dependencies and residual effects; a terminal certificate separates actual goal satisfaction from publicly supported safe completion. The known-model implementation combines standard observation-contingent planning with a separately implemented effect-history adjudicator. In a finite study of 37 assignments, planning and three active controls each certify 28 completions; four saved synthetic fee units incur additional computation. A preregistered assignment-held-out comparison then evaluates planning advice against evidence prompting with two local model bundles. Across 58 paired units in 19 previously developed task families, advice certifies 30 completions versus 9, a 36.2-percentage-point difference (exact family sign-flip p=0.0078), using 272 proposals versus 399. All 116 trajectories pass independent replay. Both models exhibit a positive completion difference. The comparison measures the evaluated advice interface under a common shield; search-versus-rule advice requires a separate matched comparison. Unknown and handoff outcomes remain explicit, with guarantees tied to the declared provider capabilities rather than arbitrary third-party exactly-once execution.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org
Read the original article:
Evidence-Guided Recovery for AI Agents with Ambiguous Tool Outcomes and Partial Execution