https://arxiv.org/api/k8t8TiHFyheAAHC61uUyNX/oXHs2026-09-12T19:57:46Z293651515http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.11264v1Can AI Remediate Backend Failures Safely? GuardedAct with Blast-Radius-Aware Sandboxing2026-09-10T08:58:13ZLarge Language Models (LLMs) have shown promising capabilities in generating remediation actions for microservice failures. However, directly executing AI-generated repair actions in production risks cascading collateral damage. We propose GuardedAct, a sandbox-first remediation framework that interposes a blast-radius-aware verification layer between the LLM action generator and the production environment. GuardedAct operates in four phases: (1) ingesting a diagnosis report together with the live system topology and recent telemetry, (2) prompting an LLM to produce a ranked list of candidate remediation actions, (3) simulating each action in a lightweight digital-twin sandbox that estimates the blast radius and assigns a risk label, and (4) enforcing a rollback-confidence gate that auto-executes only low-risk actions while escalating high-risk ones for human review. We evaluate GuardedAct on five fault scenarios injected into the DeathStarBench social-network application. Experimental results show that GuardedAct achieves an overall recovery rate of 87.4% while reducing collateral damage by 79.7% relative to direct LLM execution (from 25.6% to 5.2%), at the cost of a modest sandbox-induced increase in mean time to recovery (approximately 8 s). Ablation studies confirm that each component contributes meaningfully to the safety-speed trade-off.2026-09-10T08:58:13ZWanrong CaiTianyu YuShaorui PiXiaoxuan SunWenrui Mahttp://arxiv.org/abs/2609.11212v1TripleBound: Triplet-Guided Heterogeneous Graph Learning for Microservice Decomposition2026-09-10T08:15:24ZCloud computing and DevOps have made microservices a common architecture for scalable, maintainable software systems. However, migrating monoliths to microservices remains challenging due to tight coupling and unclear service boundaries. Existing decomposition approaches typically rely on either structural dependencies or semantic similarity signals, but rarely integrate both within a unified representation learning objective. This paper proposes TripleBound, a hybrid framework for automated monolith-to-microservices decomposition that augments a heterogeneous graph neural network with weakly supervised triplet constraints derived from parser-inferred service groups based on package structure, naming conventions, and code location. TripleBound injects triplet-based constraints directly into the shared structural latent space, enabling both signals to be jointly optimized during representation learning. Structural dependencies are captured using CHGNN, which models the monolith as a heterogeneous graph with program nodes, resource nodes, CALL edges, and CRUD edges. Semantic relationships are incorporated through triplet constraints generated from parser-inferred service groups. Evaluation on AcmeAir, DayTrader, PlantsByWebSphere, and JPetStore shows that TripleBound achieves the highest composite decomposition score under the selected weighting on AcmeAir, DayTrader, and JPetStore compared to CHGNN and MonoEmbed, while CHGNN remains stronger on PlantsByWebSphere. Per-metric analysis reveals trade-offs: gains in structural modularity and inter-partition coupling are accompanied by higher entity distribution imbalance on some datasets. Alternative composite weightings preserve TripleBound's first-place ranking on AcmeAir and DayTrader but not on JPetStore, showing that the aggregate ranking is metric-dependent.2026-09-10T08:15:24Z13 pages, 4 figures. Replication package available on GitHubMineth WeerasingheHimindu KularathneMethmini MadhushikaDanuka LakshanNisansa de SilvaAdeesha WijayasiriSrinath Pererahttp://arxiv.org/abs/2609.11195v1FST Pay: Deterministic Safety-Gated Architecture for Youth Digital Payments2026-09-10T08:03:34ZDigital payment infrastructures increasingly provide adolescent users with direct access to real-time financial services. While early access promotes financial literacy and digital inclusion, it exposes young users to severe risks of impulsive spending, social engineering frauds, unauthorized transactions, and merchant exploitation. Conventional countermeasures rely on probabilistic machine learning or rigid static controls. However, allowing probabilistic or generative artificial intelligence (AI) models to directly influence real-time payment authorization introduces non-determinism, unpredictable edge-case behavior, and critical audit vulnerabilities. This paper introduces Financial Safety for Teens Pay (FST Pay) as an architectural and formal specification. FST Pay is founded on an immutable operational boundary: strict deterministic safety gating on the real-time authorization path coupled with decoupled downstream AI explanation. Transactions initiated via rails like UPI are subjected to six deterministic invariant checks covering spending limits, guardian co-sign policies, transaction amount thresholds, merchant category codes, temporal access intervals, and hardware integrity constraints. Transactions are classified strictly into ALLOW, REVIEW, or BLOCK outcomes through an ordered, mutually exclusive decision function. High-risk transactions trigger an asynchronous guardian co-sign workflow. Generative AI is relegated entirely downstream of settlement, consuming published post-decision events solely to generate natural-language financial insights without holding mutation privileges over the ledger.2026-09-10T08:03:34ZShaikh Mohammed BurhanSyed Farhaan QuadriTabassum Nahid Sultanahttp://arxiv.org/abs/2608.26746v2FaultLens: Learning Compact Behavioral Test Suites for Generated Operational Programs2026-09-10T07:56:23ZGenerated operational programs are often validated with either a few hand-written examples or exhaustive regression suites. The former can miss sparse boundary and interaction faults, while the latter can be unnecessarily expensive. We introduce FaultLens, a method for learning compact behavioral test suites while preserving an auditable connection to executed evidence. It executes a rich probe domain once, stores the fault-probe kill relation as a sparse outcome cache, and learns probe orderings only from earlier program generations. A fault-driven greedy component exploits known kill structure, while a mutation-independent diversity component covers probe families, cases, templates, and temporal bins. Their alternating hybrid remains useful when a new program contains a fault mechanism absent from ordering construction.
We evaluate twenty generated operational policies across four environments, ten execution seeds, 1,200 measured run summaries, 2,160 controlled program transformations, and 4,120,200 executed program-probe pairs. Of 1,960 intended faulty transformations, 1,779 alter a contract or output somewhere in the finite audit domain; 200 additional controls preserve behavior. A 32-probe hybrid learned on generations 1-3 covers 576/582 (99.0%) dynamically killable faults in generations 4-5 using 1.2-2.0% of the exhaustive domain. With an entire fault family withheld from training, diversity raises scenario-family macro coverage from 84.6% to 94.9%. In a downstream deployment study, a conservative admission rule reduces severe tail regressions from 15/20 program-environment groups to 0/20. FaultLens provides a prioritized evidence mechanism, not a proof of correctness, and makes its budget, evidence source, generalization split, and misses explicit.2026-08-27T07:37:28Z13 pages, 7 figures. Includes a complete reproducibility artifact in the source packageZeming LiuHang LyuJingtao Zhanghttp://arxiv.org/abs/2609.11180v1SemVerBench: Benchmarking LLM Comprehension of Version-Constraint Resolution Semantics2026-09-10T07:34:44ZLarge language model (LLM) coding agents constantly decide whether a version satisfies a constraint such as ^1.2.3 or >=2.0,<3, yet their grasp of version-constraint semantics has never been measured directly. We introduce SemVerBench, the first benchmark of LLM version-constraint resolution semantics across three ecosystems (npm, PEP 440, Cargo): 240 machine-checkable items with unique answers, built author-neutrally from four balanced sources (each ecosystem's official test suite plus three frontier LLM proposers) and labeled by a non-circular two-implementation oracle. Evaluating six frontier models, we find systematic, predictable per-mechanism blind spots: a partial-comparator carry rule (>1.2 means >=1.3.0) traps every model on Cargo (near 60%), and although standard PEP 440 prefix matching is universal, on zero-pad/post-release corner cases GPT-5.1 collapses (0/26) while Claude stays at 97-100% (verified on a 67-item oracle-validated set). Opus significantly outperforms all other models, and Sonnet outperforms the OpenAI models (McNemar). The failures look more like an activation/application gap than a knowledge gap: injecting the rule or a light correct hint recovers most errors, whereas interval decomposition does not, and models are at ceiling on the basic forms of the same rules. An author-stratified analysis finds no statistically significant self-favoritism. Because the task is verifiable and a free, 100%-correct resolver exists, tool delegation reaches ~100%: coding agents should delegate version resolution to a resolver rather than reason about versions in-head.2026-09-10T07:34:44ZAccepted at the 38th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI 2026). 8 pages, 6 tablesQibai ChenZeming Liuhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2608.07135v2Rust Coreutils: Rebuilding Unix Foundations in a Modern Language2026-09-10T07:25:24ZGNU core utilities (coreutils) is a crucial package in modern UNIX systems. It comprises around 100 fundamental commands---like ls, cp, and cat---which run every day on millions of computers. However, GNU coreutils is also legacy software, with its C codebase dating back to the early 1990s and arguably feature-complete. If one were to consider reimplementing this essential package, how would they do so effectively, and why? This paper recounts the development of Rust coreutils, a contemporary open source reimplementation of GNU coreutils in the Rust programming language, which has reached the status of a drop-in replacement for GNU coreutils, compatible with most Linux distributions. By comparing Rust coreutils with its ancestor, we offer insights into creating a reliable substitute for critical software and highlight how modern programming features can attract development interest in legacy packages.2026-08-07T11:53:34ZSylvestre LedruSamuel TardieuStefano Zacchiroli10.1109/MS.2026.3733266http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.11122v1A Model-Centric DevOps Architecture for DEVS-Based Digital Twin Simulation Services2026-09-10T06:10:59ZDigital twin simulation models are evolved and redeployed like software, yet DEVS-based engines offer a sound formal basis with little support for versioning, automated validation, or continuous delivery in cloud-native environments, leaving model lifecycle management ad hoc in most deployments. This paper proposes a model-centric DevOps architecture for deploying DEVS-based digital twin simulations as managed services. Simulation models are treated as first-class DevOps artefacts defined in a declarative YAML language with a formal mapping to multiPDEVS, supporting structural and semantic validation in a CI/CD pipeline that produces immutable versioned artefacts, so that reverting to an earlier validated version reduces to pinning its identifier. The platform is decomposed into containerised microservices on Kubernetes, with engine adaptations for state externalisation and lifecycle control. An initial case study on the Riga Route 22 public-transit corridor, the first instantiation of a planned city-wide multi-modal transport digital twin for Riga, Latvia, exercises the full lifecycle and reports single-container engine throughput for a scenario with roughly 47,870 DEVS atomic components; pipeline-level catch statistics and cluster-level concurrent multi-scenario execution are the subject of companion empirical studies.2026-09-10T06:10:59ZSubmitted to Software and Systems Modeling (Springer). Under reviewArnis LektauersGusts LinkevičsGuntis MosānsArina FokinaRasa Gulbehttp://arxiv.org/abs/2609.11076v1SaltBench: A Referee-Gated Protocol for Measuring Method Effects in Machine-Checked Software Work2026-09-10T04:32:43ZSaltBench is a benchmark protocol for one question: How does a machine referee change the way a coding agent works? A machine referee --- a proof kernel, a program verifier, or a withheld test suite --- decides what an agent's work is worth, and the agent cannot argue with it. Here we report a protocol that makes the referee's effect measurable and whose answers cannot be narrated afterwards: every outcome is decided outside the agent's own toolchain; the agent is walled off from the network, the reference solutions and the harness itself, and the wall is tested by probes that try to breach it before any scored run, so the isolation is observed rather than assumed; every run is authorized by a dated freeze with its predictions registered; and a budget stop is a halt, never a failure. In this study, the subject of the benchmark is a ``seat'', meaning an agent session in its standard harness. We tested five systems components, all authored in Rust under a pinned Verus toolchain, with a withheld test suite as the referee for each. Four arms are tested: a plain agent; an agent that is also instructed to create a specification and verify the code against it, in a reduced rendering of the method, as registered; and two arms where the specification is provided a priori, extended under a dated amendment to $k=4$, where the registered sign test reached no verdict (3 of 4, $p = 0.3125$, every premium below the resolvable floor). We found that the arm instructed to specify and verify cost more on all five components, and by a practical margin: across these five components no premium exceeded $2.8879\times$ under either reading of the declared set, and the three cheapest sat below $1.4\times$. That bound is a property of this population and not a promise about larger ones: the premium runs near $1$ on the smallest components and rises with size. We publish the complete record.2026-09-10T04:32:43ZJason Hickeyhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2609.11060v1Grounding Agent Memory: Environment-Probing Curation for Enterprise Agents2026-09-10T04:06:16ZPersistent memory is entering production-oriented agent platforms to help long-horizon agents accumulate experience across sessions. Yet a post-task curator agent restricted to completed trajectories can preserve errors, overgeneralize partial evidence, or retain stale knowledge. We introduce environment-probing curation, a deployment-compatible extension that gives an existing asynchronous curator agent least-privilege, read-only world tools to check, scope, and refresh candidate memories. It requires no model retraining and leaves the task agent, retriever, memory representation, and production write authority unchanged. In a production-like GitHub Copilot (GHCP) harness built on its SDK, we compare stateless execution, full in-context learning, GHCP + Mem, and GHCP + Mem (w/ Env Probing) on CLBench database exploration and 90 adapted APEX management-consulting tasks. On CLBench, probing raises pass rate from 39% to 73% and pass-discounted reward from 8.60 to 22.60 while reducing queries from 8.8 to 4.7 per question and task-agent cost from \$3.38 to \$1.68. Across six APEX worlds, all 18 memory-versus-baseline mean reward comparisons are positive and task-agent tool calls fall by 16--75%; probing gives the best task-agent reward gain per dollar in five worlds. Probing also attains higher mean reward than GHCP + Mem on both Sonnet 4.6 and Opus 4.7 without schema drift. Environment probing therefore turns existing agent-memory curation into an environment-informed, auditable process while preserving a compact task-time interface.2026-09-10T04:06:16ZSusheel SureshHazel MakSahil BhatnagarChhaya MethaniAlejandro Gutierrez Munozhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2609.11028v1BenchShield: Formal Model-Backed Instrumentation for Reward Integrity in LLM-Agent Evaluation Infrastructure2026-09-10T03:10:58ZLM-agent benchmarks increasingly function as interactive evaluation infrastructure. Agents observe state, call tools, modify workspaces,
submit artifacts, and receive rewards from outcome procedures. This interactivity makes evaluations vulnerable to reward hacking: an agent
improves its measured score by exploiting the reward-relevant trajectory instead of solving the intended task. Existing defenses rely largely
on task-specific patches, prompt instructions, or post-hoc detectors. They do not provide reusable evidence that a concrete run remained
within its intended evaluation boundary. This paper presents BenchShield, a model-backed instrumentation layer for reward integrity in
LLM-agent evaluation. BenchShield grounds detection in a finite lifecycle model of an evaluation's reward-relevant events. Within the
benchmark infrastructure, two complementary analyses operate over this model. A static, phase-aware taint analysis exposes reward-hacking
paths before a run. Its runtime counterpart uses infrastructure-side evidence to attribute concrete agent use and emit evidence-backed claims.
We construct BenchShield Trajectories, a human-labeled corpus of 456 adjudicated trajectories from more than 31,000 public agent runs across
three benchmarks. Compared with an agentic hackability scanner baseline on the same tasks and model, BenchShield improves full-chain recall
from 23-94% to 77-100%, same-vector coverage from 16-56% to 43-78%, and reduces per-task cost by up to 65%. Its runtime analysis achieves 96%
accuracy in detecting reward hacking from infrastructure-side evidence.2026-09-10T03:10:58ZShenghan ZhengZonglin DiYimin LiuKyoung Whan ChoeJiankai SunHeguang LinPenghao JiangYifeng HeXiao ChengJicheng WangWenbo ChenAlex YatesYinzhe ZhaoBingran YouYuan GaoAyush MunotShubham GaurZhe YeHao WangXiangyi LiDawn SongChristophe Hauserhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2609.11023v1RCL: A Retrieval-Confidence Layer for Detecting Insufficient Context in Enterprise Retrieval-Augmented Code Generation2026-09-10T03:02:23ZRetrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) for code generation has been studied extensively on public repositories, where a model's parametric knowledge often compensates for imperfect retrieval. This breaks down in enterprise codebases, where private APIs, internal frameworks, and undocumented team conventions fall entirely outside any model's pretraining distribution. Recent work on private-library code generation shows that even oracle (perfect) retrieval does not eliminate errors, but locates failures downstream in API usage; separately, confidence-gated retrieval has been studied for open-domain question answering using model-internal confidence. Neither addresses whether retrieval itself was structurally sufficient for a private-code query before generation begins. We introduce RCL (Retrieval-Confidence Layer), a lightweight module inserted between retrieval and generation that combines a call-graph-derived structural coverage score with a novelty score estimating a query's dependence on knowledge outside the model's prior, to detect insufficient retrieval before generation occurs. When confidence falls below a calibrated threshold, RCL triggers a targeted follow-up retrieval or labels the output for human review, rather than generating silently against incomplete context. We describe RCL's architecture, formalize its scoring functions, and propose an evaluation methodology using a private-code benchmark built by injecting synthetic internal APIs into open-source Java repositories, simulating the enterprise condition without proprietary code. We report results (Section 7) comparing RCL against similarity-only retrieval on generation correctness. Our position is that retrieval sufficiency, assessed structurally rather than from model-internal confidence, is a distinct and currently underaddressed signal for building safer code-generation systems in private, enterprise settings.2026-09-10T03:02:23Z7 pages, 1 figure, 2 tablesChandra Mohan Ravurihttp://arxiv.org/abs/2609.11008v1DeFiFusion: Combining Transaction Events with Smart Contracts to Detect Price Manipulation Attacks2026-09-10T02:36:45ZDecentralized Finance (DeFi) has emerged as a rapidly growing blockchain-based financial service, where market transaction dynamics and underlying smart contract logic are intricately intertwined. This autonomous interplay, while eliminating centralized intermediaries, significantly expands the vulnerability surface of DeFi protocols to Price Manipulation Attacks (PMAs), which have already inflicted catastrophic financial losses. Despite their gravity, existing detection paradigms suffer from fundamental limitations. Transaction-centric methods lack awareness of contract execution semantics, making them prone to false positives under legitimate market volatility, while static contract analyses ignore real transaction behaviors and frequently report vulnerabilities that are infeasible to exploit in practice. We present DeFiFusion, a dual-modal PMA detection framework that closes this gap by jointly modeling transaction events and smart contract semantics within a unified pipeline. Our core insight is that PMA maliciousness emerges only from the interaction between transaction behaviors and the contract logic they exploit; neither signal suffices in isolation. Accordingly, we derive price-manipulation-aware event encoding for extracting fine-grained temporal and economic features tailored to manipulation patterns. We further introduce LLM-based contract semantic extraction to supply the execution-logic context that prior behavioral methods lack. To fuse these modalities, we propose a Dual-Modal Projection-Fusion Transformer with T5-style relative positional encoding, capturing the cyclic multi-stage execution structures that distinguish PMAs from benign market activity. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DeFiFusion consistently achieves state-of-the-art detection performance, effectively recalling 222 of the 225 PMA cases while maintaining a precision of 96.10%.2026-09-10T02:36:45Z12 pages, 10 figuresRui CaoShaojing FanLiming FangYuchan LiuYingying JiaoZhenguang Liuhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2609.10969v1Engineering Reliable Commit Gates for Agentic AI: Cost-Aware Verification Portfolios under Common-Mode Data Failures2026-09-10T01:42:40ZAgentic systems commit state-changing actions, but additional verifiers can inherit the same upstream fault. We present VP-CONTROL, a runtime-assurance design and deterministic benchmark for cost-aware commit gates. Its 48 task templates yield 2,880 scenarios across six fault regimes. A fixed-call 2 x 2 experiment separates verifier-model diversity from evidence-source diversity. On frozen proposals from two local actor families, a cross-model vote over shared evidence approves 62.9% of unsafe proposals, versus 22.9% with an independent source. The source effect is 40.9 percentage points, compared with 11.3 for model diversity. A portfolio controller selects verification plans using only deployment-observable metadata. Approximate cluster-adjusted calibration at a nominal 5% per-task target yields 1.9% unsafe execution and 38.2% automated safe coverage on the locked test. Matched-budget portfolios also improve on fixed verification policies. Transfer remains conditional: unseen fault families yield 16-26% risk, and a FinQA check fails to reproduce the source effect with the tested small verifiers. A preregistered live HTTP/SQLite study tests concurrent writes and lost responses. After-check races defeat verifier-only gates; transactional partial guards prevent only covered failures, while a full atomic guard records no unsafe effects across 216 episodes. Idempotent request identifiers prevent duplicate effects after lost responses. The results motivate explicit evidence lineage, cost-aware selection, and commit-time enforcement, while exposing the limits of approximate calibration and local-tool generalization.2026-09-10T01:42:40ZZihao ZhengBaichuan LiJunyi YaoJiayu Longhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2609.10964v1Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows2026-09-10T01:35:10ZAgentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.2026-09-10T01:35:10ZBochao FengJianjiang LiHaojie WangLin QiaoYinghui LiYukun YanJidong Zhaihttp://arxiv.org/abs/2609.10962v1What a Random Draw from the MCP Registry Contains, and What Tool-Use Benchmarks Contain Instead2026-09-10T01:33:53ZStudies of the Model Context Protocol (MCP) server ecosystem draw their samples in ways that quietly select for servers that work: reference sets, popularity lists, hand-curated frames, or pipelines that repair a server until it starts. We report what an unrepaired probability sample actually contains. From a 24,135-server registry census we draw 400 npm/stdio servers with a published seed and probe each one over the wire. Only 48.8% complete an initialize handshake, against 66.7% for a hand-curated frame measured with the same instrument, and the dominant failure is not missing credentials (13.3%) but servers that never start at all (37.5%). Among the 195 that do run, hard conformance is total: zero fatal JSON Schema violations across 2,766 advertised tools. Optional safety annotations are the real variance, and the tool-level omission rate on a random draw is 58.8% against 41.5% on the curated frame, so curation flatters this figure too. We then compare the tool descriptions these servers advertise against two tool-use benchmark corpora using one method held constant. Real MCP tools show 2.8% near-duplication at cosine 0.70, and all of it lies within single servers: cross-author near-duplication is 0.0% at every threshold tested. BFCL v4 shows 16.7%, of which 16.4 points lie between independently presented tasks. UltraTool shows 0.3%, cleaner than real tools, so this is a property of BFCL and not of synthetic corpora as a class. Separately, 68.8% of raw BFCL rows and 85.6% of raw UltraTool rows are exact name-plus-description repeats, against 0.4% for real MCP, so any statistic computed over these releases without global deduplication measures repetition rather than tools. All figures regenerate from released scripts and a published seed.2026-09-10T01:33:53Z10 pages, 3 figures. Seeded, re-runnable pipeline and per-server outcomes: https://github.com/itguruhaseeb/mcp-probe ; archived at doi:10.5281/zenodo.21347997Haseeb Mohammed Afsar