Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.30691

ADF-EA: A Unified Execution Assurance System for Agent Device Foundation

Xuechun Li·Jiaxin Liang·Jie Li·baolong Li·Jue Wang·Peng Yuan·Hang Huang
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Agents based on large language models (LLMs) can access heterogeneous devices through tools and APIs, but reliable execution must account for unmet effects, uncertain outcomes, and changing prerequisites. A command may be acknowledged without producing its intended effect, while missing feedback may obscure an action that has already succeeded. We present Agent Device Foundation--Execution Assurance (ADF-EA), an architecture that connects agent planning and device execution through shared capability contracts. Device Capability Contracts (DCCs) unify invocation conditions, intended effects, evidence requirements, and recovery rules across heterogeneous interfaces. Agents use these contracts to plan, while the runtime applies the same semantics to authorize actions, verify effects, and govern continuation and completion. Persistent execution state retains verified progress, unresolved outcomes, and remaining budgets across plan revisions, enabling observation-based recovery, authorized retries, and necessary state repair. We formalize the execution lifecycle and establish conditional soundness properties for completion and recovery authorization. Evaluations span multiple LLMs, five agent frameworks, and simulated process-control, household, and robotic manipulation domains. Compared with direct invocation and existing execution-checking approaches, ADF-EA reduces false completion and unnecessary repetition, supports necessary state repair, prevents calls to unavailable capabilities, and preserves permitted task completion and recovery. These results demonstrate DCCs as a reusable semantic foundation for agent autonomy across heterogeneous devices, unifying capability-based planning, evidence-grounded execution, and authorized recovery within one architecture.

Explore related subjects

cs.MA

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Xuechun Li, Jiaxin Liang, Jie Li, baolong Li, Jue Wang, Peng Yuan, Hang Huang. 2026-09-25. ADF-EA: A Unified Execution Assurance System for Agent Device Foundation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.30691

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

From Evidence to Effect: Authority Semantics and Runtime Infrastructure for Stateful Agents

Stateful agents reuse artifacts after producing executions and permissions change. We formalize authority-sufficient observations and durable effects bound to execution and material identities. WTB implements this interface through runtime adapters, shared evidence, and transactional publication/recovery. Six study families separate the mechanism from its integration. Raw and typed evidence both solve 32/32 authority cases, with model-dependent planning effects. Fixed-intent enforcement blocks six unsafe proposals and executes 12 eligible authorized intents. Complete controls match WTB's capability. Paid integration yields 176/210 accepted benchmark-source stages, including 19/30 publication stages, recovery on 8/8 primary SWE repositories, and the most complete continuous trajectories on each of three source tasks. The findings connect authority information, effect admission, and infrastructure reuse in stateful agents.

cs.MA↗
arXiv2026

Scores Alone Do Not Prove Discovery: The Discovery Certification Protocol for Auditing AI Research Agents

AI research agents combine public information and experimental feedback to produce measurable results. The Discovery Certification Protocol (DCP) turns an outcome claim into an executable audit under a registered model, information boundary, and budget. Gate 1 validates useful improvement. Gate 2 tests recovery by matched agents given the starting information and observed Web content, with run history and new measurements withheld. Core requires adequate registered controls, zero recoveries, and a finite-sample recovery bound. Optional Gate 3 compares truthful and neutral feedback from a shared checkpoint; Evidence adds a supported effect and a null-policy equivalence check. Controlled SQLite and virtual catalyst audits pass both decision kernels. On real-data response surfaces, Yacht and Ionosphere pass the Core kernel after zero recoveries in 96 attempts, with an upper bound of 0.0468. Each target combines ten observed utilities and six predictions into a 16-entry data product. Yacht scores 0.7677 on reconstruction of all 32 switch effects, with utility-prediction MAE 0.0315 on its six unmeasured configurations. Fresh truthful continuations recover the target level in 9/30 and 16/30 trials, respectively, separating achieved utility from process repeatability. A deterministic verifier reproduces these local decisions from frozen records.

cs.MA↗
arXiv2026

MASTraceBench: Diagnosing Collaboration Gains through Proposal Trajectories in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems

LLM-based multi-agent systems (MAS) have shown promise in complex problem solving. As MAS methods diversify, systematic evaluation becomes increasingly challenging. However, existing benchmarks largely focus on final outcomes, leaving unclear how collaboration gains arise, are preserved, or are lost. To address this limitation, we introduce MASTraceBench, a benchmark for diagnosing collaboration gains through proposal trajectories in MAS. Across six cooperative and competitive tasks, MASTraceBench tracks and grades proposal trajectories and provides a multi-layer metric suite covering Task Score, Collaboration Gain, proposal-trajectory indicators, and Token Cost. Using MASTraceBench, we systematically compare representative MAS methods not only by final performance, but also by how agent proposals evolve and are aggregated into the final answer. This analysis reveals a recurring pattern: final MAS answers rarely surpass the strongest initial proposal; interaction often lifts initially weaker proposals toward it, while strong initial proposals are seldom further improved and may regress. To reduce this risk, we propose CLEARS, which replaces whole-proposal exchange with claim-level evaluation across agents to guide reliable synthesis. CLEARS more often preserves or improves upon the strongest initial proposal and achieves the highest Collaboration Gain on five of the six tasks.

cs.MA↗