Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Original source2 min read

Permission to Retry: A Study of Authorization and Recovery in AI Agent Workflows

Summary

The paper separates recovery decisions in tool-using AI agents from language-model behavior, treating checkpoint state, permission to dispatch, evidence of external effect, and permission to reconcile as four distinct obligations, and tests them across 336 histories on LangGraph and Temporal under four recovery policies.

SourcearXiv AIAuthor: Deekshith Marla, Kushagra Bhatnagar
Permission to Retry: A Study of Authorization and Recovery in AI Agent Workflows
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 22 Oct 2026]

Title:Permission to Retry: A Study of Authorization and Recovery in AI Agent Workflows

View a PDF of the paper titled Permission to Retry: A Study of Authorization and Recovery in AI Agent Workflows, by Deekshith Marla and 1 other authors

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:A durable agent can resume a consequential action while its authority changes and the action's external outcome remains uncertain. We study execution-time reliability of tool-using AI agents, isolating recovery decisions from language-model behavior. Checkpoint state, permission to dispatch, evidence of an external effect and permission to reconcile are distinct obligations. We present a finite conformance study that checks these obligations through histories scored against a provider effect ledger hidden from the recovering application. A prospectively frozen campaign executes 336 histories on native LangGraph and Temporal hosts, crossing 14 schedules, three provider contracts and four matched application policies. All 168 paired host cells have identical checked outcomes. Per host, retained-ledger reconciliation passes all 42 histories: 21 checked completions, 15 denials and six unknown outcomes with reservations retained. Cached retry, revalidation before retry and stable-key retry pass 30, 36 and 31 histories respectively. A separate 16-case component study of InfinityOS, an enterprise AI platform developed by this http URL, exercises exported authority, worker, recovery and settlement code over repository fakes. The results isolate the roles of current authority, provider contracts and retained observations in recovery, with safety, completion and unresolved obligations reported separately for the declared application profile.

Comments: 7 pages, 2 figures, 3 tables

Subjects:

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Software Engineering (cs.SE)

Cite as: arXiv:2610.31916 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2610.31916v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.31916

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Deekshith Marla [view email] [v1] Thu, 22 Oct 2026 21:09:22 UTC (324 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Permission to Retry: A Study of Authorization and Recovery in AI Agent Workflows, by Deekshith Marla and 1 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Ancillary-file links:

Ancillary files (details):

data/README.txt

data/component-outcomes.csv

data/history-outcomes.csv

data/policy-outcomes.csv

data/replacement-worker-times.csv

software-versions.json

Additional Features

Audio Summary

Current browse context:

cs.AI

new | recent | 2026-10

Change to browse by:

cs cs.SE

References & Citations

SciX

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

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

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

EngineersAdvanced

Key points

  • Recovery is studied as an execution-time reliability problem isolated from language-model behavior.
  • Checkpoint state, dispatch permission, evidence of external effect, and reconciliation permission are treated as separate obligations.
  • Retained-ledger reconciliation passed all 42 histories per host; cached retry, revalidation before retry, and stable-key retry passed 30, 36, and 31 respectively.
  • Paired runs on LangGraph and Temporal produced identical checked outcomes across all 168 paired host cells.

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.