arXiv:2611.10884v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Much of the automation handed to language-model agents is procedural: each step needs little intelligence, but a long unattended run must follow a skill or SOP stated once at the start. We show that agents drift from such procedures over long runs, and that restating the instructions or resuming a stopped agent only moves the drift to another shortcut. We study an executable finite-state machine (FSM) that keeps the workflow state outside the model's context and enforces it at three points: tool calls, state transitions and the end of the agent's turn. In a pre-registered experiment on 200-account SOP-Bench batches, Claude Haiku 4.5 with the FSM decided on average 139 accounts correctly and by the procedure, against 48 for the strongest baseline (95% CI of the difference [46, 130]), and kept this rate to the end; across three models, the gain tracked how much the plain agent drifted. Because the runtime, not the model, supplies this long-horizon reliability, the FSM can let small models carry procedural work: Haiku 4.5 with it averaged more such decisions than plain Claude Sonnet 4.6 at 38% of the cost. Analyses on SWE-bench Verified, $\tau^2$-bench, and staged and cross-context workflows further suggest that reliable long-horizon automation can come from stronger execution control, not only stronger models.
Abstract: Much of the automation handed to language-model agents is procedural: each step needs little intelligence, but a long unattended run must follow a skill or SOP stated once at the start. We show that agents drift from such procedures over long runs, and that restating the instructions or resuming a stopped agent only moves the drift to another shortcut. We study an executable finite-state machine (FSM) that keeps the workflow state outside the model's context and enforces it at three points: tool calls, state transitions and the end of the agent's turn. In a pre-registered experiment on 200-account SOP-Bench batches, Claude Haiku 4.5 with the FSM decided on average 139 accounts correctly and by the procedure, against 48 for the strongest baseline (95% CI of the difference [46, 130]), and kept this rate to the end; across three models, the gain tracked how much the plain agent drifted. Because the runtime, not the model, supplies this long-horizon reliability, the FSM can let small models carry procedural work: Haiku 4.5 with it averaged more such decisions than plain Claude Sonnet 4.6 at 38% of the cost. Analyses on SWE-bench Verified, $\tau^2$-bench, and staged and cross-context workflows further suggest that reliable long-horizon automation can come from stronger execution control, not only stronger models.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org
Read the original article: