The DOI matches its DataCite record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
RetryBench: Separating Retry Permission from Recovery Outcomes in GPT Tool Use
Abstract
LLM agents that call external tools must decide what to do when a tool call times out: retrying risks duplicate side effects, while not retrying can leave the task incomplete. We present RetryBench, an evaluation protocol for retry decisions and failure recovery in tool-using LLM agents. Each decision is scored on retry permission (is the retry justified by an idempotency-key guarantee or proof of non-execution?), settled effects (duplicates and omissions), and completion, by replaying it across all hidden execution worlds consistent with the observation. On four synthetic software-engineering tasks, we run two controlled prompt-sensitivity studies (1,728 decisions). Study 1 (idempotency-key descriptions): with the contract fixed, GPT-5.6 Luna reuses the valid idempotency key in 10/40 decisions when an extra key is described as a "Candidate recovery key" but in 39/40 when it is an "Alternative key string"; across three further phrasings per family the gap is 27/120 versus 113/120. GPT-5.6 Sol and Terra are at ceiling (40/40). Study 2 (action order): under underspecified lookup guarantees, retry rates are 17-27 points lower for GPT-5.6 Terra and GPT-5.4 when retry is listed first (option-order bias), mainly on two tasks; we make no claim about which behavior is better. Findings are limited to researcher-chosen phrasings, four tasks and unpinned model aliases. Code and all model responses are released.
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.
Metadata
- Authors
- Liu, Y., Liu, Y., & Lu, Q.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- arXiv
- 2610.15884
- 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: RetryBench: Separating Retry Permission from Recovery Outcomes in GPT Tool Use. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2610.15884
- The paper
- Liu, Y., Liu, Y., & Lu, Q. (2026). RetryBench: Separating Retry Permission from Recovery Outcomes in GPT Tool Use. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2610.15884
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.
