Repair or Resample? Rethinking Failure Debugging in LLM Multi-Agent Systems
Organizations: Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology Xi’an, China
Abstract
As large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems (MASs) are increasingly applied to long-horizon complex tasks, their reliability has emerged as the core bottleneck hindering their real-world deployment. Existing MAS debugging and repair methods typically rely on rerunning and resampling the entire execution trajectory. However, a fundamental question remains to be answered: do these methods causally repair MAS failures or merely stochastically repair by leveraging the randomness of LLM sampling? To evaluate the effectiveness of MAS repair methods, we introduce SymTrace, a controlled evaluation framework that records the MAS execution trajectory and establishes intervention anchors. During replay, it effectively reconstructs the execution before the anchor using recorded logs and only regenerates the downstream trajectory, thereby enabling the reliable reproduction of MAS failures. We further construct the dataset SymFail, comprising 536 human-annotated failure trajectories with graph-linked locations, categories, and trace evidence. Based on these foundations, we conduct a large-scale empirical study across three mainstream MAS frameworks. Our findings reveal that existing unguided rerun methods are highly unreliable, exhibiting low failure reproduction and repair rates (only 67.97% and 6.90%, respectively). Building upon these findings, we further explore the effectiveness of a symptom-driven intervention method, which successfully repairs 20.15% of the failed cases (a 191.89% improvement to state-of-the-art repair methods). This study aims to provide actionable insights for MAS debugging and repair research, paving the way for the robust deployment of multi-agent systems.
Figures & tables
| Category | Repair signal |
|---|---|
| Implicated constraint and conflicting behavior; request a compliant alternative. | |
| Repeated history and unfinished objective; request an action that makes progress. | |
| Unresolved runtime condition and its evidence; require resolution before continuing. | |
| Explicit plan, action, and outcome; request a decision that resolves their inconsistency. |
| (%) | (%) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | AG2 | CA | MO | Total | AG2 | CA | MO | Total |
| Rerun | 64.13 | 77.36 | 62.06 | 67.97 | 36.26 | 52.72 | 34.81 | 41.42 |
| Replay | 80.70 | 81.88 | 79.74 | 80.78 | 50.29 | 53.26 | 53.59 | 52.43 |
| Group | Cases | (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rerun | Self | Critic | |||
| MAS | AG2 | 171 | 8.19 | 4.68 | 4.09 |
| CrewAI | 184 | 3.80 | 2.17 | 2.72 | |
| Magentic-One | 181 | 8.84 | 6.08 | 4.42 | |
| Category | C1 | 125 | 9.60 | 4.80 | 2.40 |
| C2 | 69 | 4.35 | 2.90 | 5.80 | |
| Method | Att. | Pass rate (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AG2 | CA | MO | Total | ||
| Last-Node | 1 | 0.58 | 1.63 | 1.66 | 1.31 |
| Random-Node | 1 | 2.34 | 4.89 | 3.87 | 3.73 |
| Critic-Agent | 3 | 4.09 | 2.72 | 4.42 | 3.73 |
| Self-Reflection | 3 | 4.68 | 2.17 | 6.08 | 4.29 |
| Unguided Full Rerun | 3 | 8.19 | 3.80 | 8.84 | 6.90 |
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Initial pattern | Cases | Outcome relative to final annotation |
|---|---|---|
| Unanimous | 210 | all three retained 187; modified 23 |
| 2–1 split | 214 | majority retained 124; minority retained 48; new tuple 42 |
| All distinct | 112 | one proposed tuple retained 77; new tuple 35 |
| Target | Fleiss’ (95% CI) | Pairwise | Unanimous (3/3) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary category | 0.622 (0.545–0.692) | 89.86% | 459/536 (85.63%) |
| Exact multi-label category set | 0.574 (0.535–0.612) | 64.74% | 280/536 (52.24%) |
| C1 presence | 0.696 (0.617–0.769) | 93.91% | 487/536 (90.86%) |
| C2 presence | 0.374 (0.306–0.440) | 79.23% | 369/536 (68.84%) |
| C3 presence | 0.718 (0.671–0.764) | 86.19% | 425/536 (79.29%) |
| C4 presence | 0.688 (0.628–0.745) | 88.43% | 443/536 (82.65%) |
| MAS | Method | Method pass@3 | Rerun pass@3 | pp [95% CI] | Raw | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AG2 | Self-Reflection | 8/171 (4.68%) | 14/171 (8.19%) | [ , 1.17] | 5/11 | 0.210 | 0.237 |
| AG2 | Critic-Agent | 7/171 (4.09%) | 14/171 (8.19%) | [ , 0.00] | 4/11 | 0.118 | 0.237 |
| Magentic-One | Self-Reflection | 11/181 (6.08%) | 16/181 (8.84%) | [ , 2.21] | 8/13 | 0.383 | 0.383 |
| Magentic-One | Critic-Agent | 8/181 (4.42%) | 16/181 (8.84%) | [ , 0.00] | 6/14 | 0.115 | 0.231 |
| CrewAI | Self-Reflection | 4/184 (2.17%) | 7/184 (3.80%) | [ , 1.09] | 2/5 | 0.453 | 0.906 |
| CrewAI | Critic-Agent | 5/184 (2.72%) | 7/184 (3.80%) | [ , 1.63] | 3/5 | 0.727 | 0.906 |
| MAS | Comparator | Suspicious-Node | Comparator | pp [95% CI] | Raw | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AG2 | Unguided Full Rerun | 28/171 (16.37%) | 14/171 (8.19%) | [1.75, 14.62] | 24/10 | 0.0243 | 0.0243 |
| AG2 | Self-Reflection | 28/171 (16.37%) | 8/171 (4.68%) | [5.26, 18.13] | 26/6 | ||
| AG2 | Critic-Agent | 28/171 (16.37%) | 7/171 (4.09%) | [7.02, 18.13] | 24/3 | ||
| AG2 | Random-Node | 28/171 (16.37%) | 4/171 (2.34%) | [8.19, 19.88] | 27/3 | ||
| AG2 | Last-Node | 28/171 (16.37%) | 1/171 (0.58%) | [10.53, 21.64] | 27/0 | ||
| Magentic-One | Unguided Full Rerun | 34/181 (18.78%) | 16/181 (8.84%) | [3.87, 16.02] | 27/9 | 0.00393 | 0.00393 |
| MAS | Method | API calls | Repairs | Repairs/1K calls | Calls/repair |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AG2 | Last-Node | 249 | 1 | 4.0 | 249.0 |
| AG2 | Random-Node | 293 | 4 | 13.7 | 73.3 |
| AG2 | Critic-Agent | 295 | 7 | 23.7 | 42.1 |
| AG2 | Self-Reflection | 314 | 8 | 25.5 | 39.3 |
| AG2 | Unguided Full Rerun | 400 | 14 | 35.0 | 28.6 |
| AG2 | Suspicious-Node | 419 | 28 | 66.8 | 15.0 |
| Category | Operational meaning | Deterministic candidate conditions |
|---|---|---|
| C1: Task-constraint violation | The behavior conflicts with an explicit task constraint or output requirement. | The node violates a stated constraint, produces an incompatible output format, contains a placeholder or skipped action, or returns an unresolved request instead of the required result. |
| C2: Repeated or stalled progress | The history repeats while the objective remains unfinished. | The normalized action fingerprint or tool URL matches a preceding node; the node retries without new parameters or evidence; or another final-style output follows without an action that advances the unfinished objective. |
| C3: Unresolved runtime condition | The node contains or continues from an unresolved execution, access, or upstream condition. | The node records an error, timeout, or failed tool result; reports inaccessible required evidence; or proceeds toward a final answer while an error remains in the preceding trace. |
| C4: Plan–action–outcome inconsistency | An explicit plan or claim conflicts with the executed action or observed outcome. | A browser action lacks a URL or uses an invalid view-source: URL; structured data is requested but HTML is returned; completion follows an unsuccessful action; or a tool-dependent task is answered without successful tool evidence. |
LLM Agent Reliability
Large language model (LLM) agent reliability concerns dependable, safe, and verifiable behavior across tools, multi-step tasks, and changing environments.
See all 826 papers