The DOI matches its DataCite record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Verified Detection and Prevention of Concurrency Anomalies in Multi-Agent Large Language Model Systems
Abstract
Multi-agent LLM systems share state through memory stores, vector indices, and tool registries. We model such sharing as long-running read-generate-write operations under deterministic-generation semantics -- the regime durable-execution engines enforce by deterministic replay -- and formalize four concurrency anomalies in TLA+: stale-generation, phantom-tool, causal-cascade, and tool-effect reordering, structural analogues of classical isolation anomalies, each with a TLC counter-example. The exclusion lattice over these anomalies is trivial; the contribution is the mechanically verified realizability and strict separation of one maximal chain within it, $L_0 \subsetneq \cdots \subsetneq L_4$, to our knowledge the first machine-checked consistency hierarchy for such runtimes. A development of 274 Verus obligations (zero assume, zero admit; trust base: two structural axioms and a mutex correspondence) proves the detectors sound and complete against the specifications and each runtime its avoidance set. Three deployed Rust runtimes realize L0-L1 (pessimistic locking, serializable snapshot isolation, default-SI), each verified against stale-generation and refined to its state machine; L2-L4 are exec-mode-verified with dependency-free prevention twins (A3, A6, A2: 0/1000 versus 1000/1000), and L2 is run live across three model families (A3 prevented in all 120 retracted sessions). We reproduce a silent lost update in ByteDance's deer-flow, formalizing its fix as a verified $L_0 \to L_1$ refinement, and exhibit tool-effect reordering in LangGraph's ToolNode on unmodified output, removed by an L3 commit-order sequencer. The verified detector, refinements, and realizability artifacts are the contribution; the phenomena and lattice are classical.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models
Yao, S., Zhao, J., Yu, D., Du, N., Shafran, I., Narasimhan, K., & Cao, Y. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.03629 · Cited by 608
Gorilla: Large Language Model Connected with Massive APIs
Patil, S., Zhang, T., Wang, X., & Gonzalez, J. (2024) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 · doi:10.52202/079017-4020 · Cited by 226
MemGPT: Towards LLMs as Operating Systems
Packer, C., Wooders, S., Lin, K., Fang, V., Patil, S. G., Stoica, I., & Gonzalez, J. E. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.08560 · Cited by 64
Efficient Guided Generation for Large Language Models
Willard, B. T., & Louf, R. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.09702 · Cited by 27 · cited 1×
“…ones are sometimes configured, and even then greedy decoding is not fully deterministic [98] while constrained/grammar-guided generation [97] narrows toward our regime—and, non-hypothetically, durable-execution engines (Section 7.9) enforce deterministic replay in production, so within…”
Influential(2025) · doi:10.14778/3750601.3750611 · Cited by 20
CodeCRDT: Observation-Driven Coordination for Multi-Agent LLM Code Generation
Pugachev, S. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.18893 · Cited by 13 · cited 4×
“Atomix [2] provides progress-aware transactional semantics for tool calls; SagaLLM [1] uses saga-style compensation; CodeCRDT [18] uses CRDTs for strong eventual consistency in parallel code generation.”
Influential
Metadata
- Authors
- Khan, S.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- arXiv
- 2606.17182
- References
- 6
- Type
- Preprint
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Verified Detection and Prevention of Concurrency Anomalies in Multi-Agent Large Language Model Systems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2606.17182
- The paper
- Khan, S. (2026). Verified Detection and Prevention of Concurrency Anomalies in Multi-Agent Large Language Model Systems. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2606.17182
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
