Mingkai Zheng
Publications
From Faulty Memories to Corrected Actions: Dependency-Guided Rollback Repair for Memory-Augmented Agents
Persistent memory lets language-model agents reuse information across sessions, but it also makes errors durable: a poisoned, stale, or misattributed record can alter reasoning, tool use, answers, and subsequent memory writes. Existing defenses mainly detect or delete suspicious memories, or revise the current response. Deleting the source leaves already propagated claims, actions, and derived memories active, whereas resetting the store or replaying the full trace destroys benign state and repeats unnecessary computation. We therefore formulate \textbf{post-failure memory recovery: } \textit{given a failed execution and diagnosed faulty memories, recover both the answer and persistent state while retaining unaffected work.} Our \textbf{dependency-guided rollback repair} builds a typed memory-to-action graph from runtime provenance, traces explicit downstream dependencies, preserves candidates with independent trusted support, deactivates unsupported memory state, and selectively replays only answer-relevant affected computation. We evaluate this approach on a 150-case controlled benchmark spanning three tool-use domains and four memory failure types, and on a 50-case trajectory-derived stress test adapted from LongMemEval-V2. On the controlled benchmark, it achieves 85.3\% recovery versus 77.3\% for the best competing recovery method, removes all diagnosed faulty memories, preserves all benign memories, and requires only selective replay with modest LLM-call cost. On the adapted subset, it reaches 68.0\% recovery versus 54.0\% for the next best method, while also achieving the highest claim invalidation F1, 0.669 versus 0.603. Overall, the results do not imply uniformly better trace reconstruction, but show that dependency-guided rollback repair provides a strong recovery--cost trade-off while repairing faulty memory state and preserving benign memory.
COVENANT: Natural-Language Workflow Compilation for Aligned Agent Execution
Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly entrusted with natural-language workflow instructions (e.g., retail-payment policies) that specify not only what outcome to achieve, but also which steps, branches, and tool interactions are permitted. When these instructions are supplied as prompt context, however, the model retains control over both procedure selection and step execution. As interactions accumulate, an agent can skip required steps, take unsupported branches, or execute a valid step with unsupported arguments or effects--a failure mode we call workflow misalignment. In this work, we propose COVENANT, a compiler-and-interpreter architecture for workflow-aligned agent execution. Our key insight is to treat workflow instructions as source programs rather than prompts. COVENANT converts the instructions into a workflow abstract syntax tree (WAST) and lowers it to a workflow control-flow graph (WCFG). At runtime, a controller interprets the WCFG one node at a time, checks each proposal against requirements extracted from the instructions before committing controller state or advancing the graph, and returns diagnostic feedback for repair. To evaluate COVENANT, we use 120 cases from three existing benchmarks, spanning seven workflow scenarios. Compared with state-of-the-art LLM agents, COVENANT improves benchmark success from 50.00% to 83.33% and reduces the workflow-misalignment failure rate from 42.50% to 15.83% (62.75% relative). These results show that COVENANT substantially mitigates workflow misalignment, moving LLM-agent alignment beyond isolated prompt following toward reliable execution of complex and multi-step workflows.
MemTX: Transactional Belief Commit for Stateful Agent Memory
LLM agents increasingly coordinate through persistent shared memory: one agent's write becomes another agent's premise, and eventually a tool call with real side effects. Current agent memory systems treat every accepted write as immediately actionable truth, so a polluted tool result, a stale update, or a teammate's half-finished note can silently drive an irreversible action. We argue that a memory write is not a belief commit. We present MemTX, a transactional belief-commit protocol. Each record carries evidence, permissions, provenance, and validity. Writes are staged inside snapshot-isolated transactions and admitted by a validate-and-commit pipeline, irreversible tool calls are gated on in-flight belief state, and retracting a belief triggers typed cascading repair of its derived records and tool side effects. Two invariants, action-safety gating and cascade-repair completeness, are machine-checked by property-based testing and bounded exhaustive enumeration of 5.5 million protocol states, with zero violations. Across five backbones from three model families, MemTX leads all eight baselines with paired-McNemar significance on four backbones and statistically ties the best baseline on the fifth and strongest, while remaining the only method with zero downstream harm on every backbone. Backbone capability does not substitute for commit discipline.