AgentTrace: Causal Graph Tracing for Root Cause Analysis in Deployed Multi-Agent Systems
Organizations: USC Viterbi School of Engineering
Abstract
As multi-agent AI systems are increasingly deployed in real-world settings - from automated customer support to DevOps remediation - failures become harder to diagnose due to cascading effects, hidden dependencies, and long execution traces. We present AgentTrace, a lightweight causal tracing framework for post-hoc failure diagnosis in deployed multi-agent workflows. AgentTrace reconstructs causal graphs from execution logs, traces backward from error manifestations, and ranks candidate root causes using interpretable structural and positional signals - without requiring LLM inference at debugging time. Across a diverse benchmark of multi-agent failure scenarios designed to reflect common deployment patterns, AgentTrace localizes root causes with high accuracy and sub-second latency, significantly outperforming both heuristic and LLM-based baselines. Our results suggest that causal tracing provides a practical foundation for improving the reliability and trustworthiness of agentic systems in the wild.
Figures & tables
| Group ( ) | Feature | Formula | Range |
|---|---|---|---|
| Position (0.70) | Normalized Position | ||
| Distance to Error | |||
| Depth Ratio | |||
| Reverse Position | |||
| Structure (0.20) | Out-degree | ||
| In-degree |
| Domain | N | Domain | N |
|---|---|---|---|
| Software Development | 52 | Healthcare Coordination | 60 |
| Customer Service | 51 | Legal Document Analysis | 60 |
| Research Analysis | 51 | Educational Tutoring | 60 |
| Planning & Scheduling | 46 | Financial Advisory | 60 |
| Financial Trading | 50 | DevOps Automation | 60 |
| Method | Hit@1 | Hit@3 | MRR | Cohen’s h | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Random | 9.1% | 27.3% | 0.18 | 459.2 | 2.41 |
| First Node | 3.6% | 10.9% | 0.07 | 497.0 | 2.72 |
| Last Node | 12.7% | 38.2% | 0.25 | 436.5 | 2.29 |
| LLM Analysis | 68.5% | 81.4% | 0.74 | 102.5 | 0.77 |
| AgentTrace | 94.9% [92.9, 96.7] | 98.4% [96.9, 99.4] | 0.97 | – | – |
| Features | Hit@1 | Hit@1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All (P+S+C+F+E) | 94.9% | – | 0.50 | 91.3% |
| P only | 87.3% | -7.6 | 0.60 | 93.5% |
| S only | 34.5% | -60.4 | 0.70 | 94.9% |
| C only | 28.7% | -66.2 | 0.80 | 93.8% |
| F only | 15.2% | -79.7 | 0.90 | 91.1% |
| E only | 12.1% | -82.8 |
| Stratification | Category | Hit@1 | MRR |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bug Type | Logic Error | 95.8% | 0.98 |
| Communication Failure | 93.6% | 0.96 | |
| Data Corruption | 94.5% | 0.97 | |
| Missing Validation | 94.3% | 0.96 | |
| Role Confusion | 94.8% | 0.97 | |
| Trace Length | 8–9 steps | 95.5% | 0.97 |
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Domain | Agents | Interaction Pattern | N |
|---|---|---|---|
| Software Dev | Planner, Coder, Reviewer, Executor | Sequential + Review Loop | 52 |
| Customer Service | Router, Specialist, Resolver, Logger | Hierarchical Dispatch | 51 |
| Research | Searcher, Analyzer, Synthesizer, Writer | Pipeline + Feedback | 51 |
| Planning | Scheduler, Optimizer, Validator, Notifier | Iterative Refinement | 46 |
| Trading | Analyst, Strategist, RiskManager, Executor | Parallel Analysis | 50 |
| Healthcare | Triager, Specialist, Pharmacist, Coordinator | Consultation Chain | 60 |
| Domain | N | Hit@1 | Hit@3 | Hit@5 | MRR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Software Development | 52 | 94.2% | 96.2% | 100.0% | 0.96 |
| Customer Service | 51 | 92.2% | 96.1% | 100.0% | 0.94 |
| Research Analysis | 51 | 96.1% | 98.0% | 100.0% | 0.97 |
| Planning & Scheduling | 46 | 91.3% | 95.7% | 100.0% | 0.94 |
| Financial Trading | 50 | 90.0% | 98.0% | 100.0% | 0.94 |
| Healthcare Coordination | 60 | 95.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 0.97 |
| Error Type | Count | % |
|---|---|---|
| Selected error node | 82 | 47.4 |
| Off-by-one (adjacent) | 45 | 26.0 |
| Intermediate step | 31 | 17.9 |
| Completely incorrect | 15 | 8.7 |
| Total | 173 | 100 |
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Max tracing depth | 10 |
| / / | 0.70 / 0.20 / 0.05 |
| / | 0.03 / 0.02 |
| Normalization | |
| Bootstrap iters | 10,000 |
| Confidence level | 95% |