How do agentic systems handle the iterative debugging when fixed pipelines would simply fail and halt?

I appreciate the question, but I need to be direct: this archive doesn't address agentic systems and iterative debugging in the way your question implies.

The preprints here touch on two separate topics that *happen* to both involve the word "agentic":

On agentic systems: Papers [AG-2026.03-1733], [AG-2026.03-1475], and [AG-2025.12-1695] describe LLM-based agents for physics calculations (high-energy physics and symbolic computation). These systems do handle failures through iterative refinement — for instance, Diagrammatica uses "tool-constrained computation" where agents specify a human-auditable diagram and a trusted backend executes it exactly [AG-2026.03-1733], and HEPTAPOD provides "structured context" and "iterative reasoning" to manage multi-step workflows [AG-2025.12-1695]. But this is about *physics agent reliability*, not general agentic debugging patterns.

On debugging pipelines: Papers [AG-2024.02-1689] and [AG-2024.05-2070] survey debugging strategies for quantum programs, including quantum-specific assertions and bug patterns [AG-2024.05-2070]. But these address *fixed classical/quantum testing frameworks*, not how agentic systems learn from failure mid-execution.

Your question seems to ask about a general principle — how agentic loops recover from failures that would crash deterministic pipelines. The archive doesn't have a dedicated preprint on that architectural pattern; these papers are domain-specific applications rather than a treatment of agency and error recovery as such.