Agentic AI systems built on large language models fail in two persistent ways that scaling does not fix: they break under distribution shift, and they cannot explain the decisions they make. We argue these are co-symptoms of one structural deficiency in the data lifecycle that governs how agents are trained, evaluated, and deployed. Observational interaction logs record what an agent did, not what it would have done otherwise. They encode spurious correlations without controlled variation, so they lack the counterfactual structure needed to separate causal signal from coincidence or to validate an explanation. No model-centric method can recover invariances the data never contained. We present Data-Centric Anchoring: robustness and interpretability should be engineered into the data environment, not extracted from models after training. Our central contribution is the Data-Centric Agentic Loop, a four-stage framework of Curate, Augment, Constrain, and Attribute. The ordering is structural, not stylistic. Curation precedes augmentation because generative models amplify whatever bias they are trained on. Augmentation precedes constraint because invariance objectives are vacuous without variation across environments to be invariant to. Attribution closes the loop, converting observed failures into targeted data interventions for the next iteration. Each stage manufactures the preconditions of the next, which makes the loop self-correcting rather than merely sequential. We ground the framework in a failure-driven taxonomy that links four core failure modes to the data lifecycle: spurious feature reliance, distribution-shift fragility, uncertainty miscalibration, and explanation unfaithfulness. We close with the limits of this approach and the open problems that stand between it and practical deployment at scale.
Agentic data science (ADS) systems are rapidly improving their capability to autonomously analyze, fit, and interpret data, potentially moving towards a future where agents conduct the vast majority of data-science work. However, current ADS systems use statistical tools designed to be interpretable by humans, rather than interpretable by agents. To address this, we introduce Agentic-imodels, an agentic autoresearch loop that evolves data-science tools designed to be interpretable by agents. Specifically, it develops a library of scikit-learn-compatible regressors for tabular data that are optimized for both predictive performance and a novel LLM-based interpretability metric. The metric measures a suite of LLM-graded tests that probe whether a fitted model's string representation is "simulatable" by an LLM, i.e. whether the LLM can answer questions about the model's behavior by reading its string output alone. We find that the evolved models jointly improve predictive performance and agent-facing interpretability, generalizing to new datasets and new interpretability tests. Furthermore, these evolved models improve downstream end-to-end ADS, increasing performance for Copilot CLI, Claude Code, and Codex on the BLADE benchmark by up to 73%
Existing evaluation frameworks for large language models -- including HELM, MT-Bench, AgentBench, and BIG-bench -- are designed for controlled, single-session, lab-scale settings. They do not address the evaluation challenges that emerge when agentic AI systems operate continuously in production: compounding decision errors, tool failure cascades, non-deterministic output drift, and the absence of ground truth for long-horizon tasks. This paper makes three contributions. First, we present a taxonomy of seven failure modes unique to production agentic systems, each grounded in observations from systems operating at billion-event scale. Second, we demonstrate empirically where standard metrics -- ROUGE, BERTScore, accuracy/AUC, and the agentic benchmarks above -- fail to detect each failure mode. Third, we propose PAEF (Production Agentic Evaluation Framework), a five-dimension evaluation framework with an open-source reference implementation, designed for continuous evaluation on production traffic rather than episodic benchmark runs. Our analysis shows that standard metrics fail to detect four of the seven failure modes entirely and detect three others only after a lag of multiple evaluation cycles.
Automated failure attribution uses LLMs to identify where and why agentic systems fail. As agents become more capable, their failures become subtler, making automated attribution increasingly important. We introduce Who&When Pro, a large-scale benchmark for automated failure attribution in agentic systems. Using a strictly controlled pipeline that injects a failure only after exactly replaying a successful prefix, we construct 12,326 failed trajectories with golden labels across 3 modalities and 26 benchmarks covering various scenarios. Beyond benchmarking, we conduct extensive experiments and analyses, revealing systematic patterns in how models attribute failures across modalities, protocols, and model families, and providing empirical guidance for future automated failure attribution systems.