ARIA: Runtime Inspection and Amendment for Multi-Agent Systems
Organizations: Florida State University
Abstract
In LLM-based multi-agent systems (MAS), a local mistake can propagate as other agents build on it, turning a correctable error into a failed task. Diagnosing completed runs or repeatedly re-executing them to search for corrections does not provide a learned policy for intervening while execution is still in progress. We present Agent Runtime Inspection and Amendment (ARIA), a framework for learning when and how to repair ongoing multi-agent executions. Our key intuition is to turn execution-verified repairs into reusable supervision, moving repair search into data construction and training so that a learned model can intervene at runtime without repeatedly testing alternatives. First, we collect over 24{,}000 successful and failed trajectories across four multi-agent frameworks, six benchmarks, and eight host models. From these trajectories, we construct the ARIA dataset, to our knowledge the first large-scale dataset pairing failed multi-agent trajectories with execution-verified repairs. It contains 3{,}953 verified repair pairs, each specifying what went wrong, where to intervene, and how execution should continue. Then, we develop the ARIA framework for MAS-agnostic runtime inspection and amendment, designed to integrate with any MAS that exposes execution trajectories and supports continuation replacement. Using verified repairs as training examples, we teach a compact model to recognize when intervention is needed and how to correct an ongoing run. The aim is to learn repair strategies that apply to related failures in new configurations, rather than merely reproduce individual corrections. Finally, the trained ARIA model demonstrates strong repair performance in both post-hoc and runtime settings, with generalization to unseen frameworks and host models. Our code is available at https://github.com/LabRAI/ARIA.
Figures & tables
| SR by benchmark | Overall | |||||||
| Method | GSM-P | MMLU | HEval | Olymp | GAIA | SWE-L | SR | EB |
| Llama-3.1-8B backbone | ||||||||
| Zero-shot | 7.37% | 10.5% | 2.63% | 2.31% | 0.00% | 1.54% | 8.37% | 1.98 |
| Who&When ( 2025 ) | 12.4% | 14.7% | 0.00% | 1.39% | 1.92% | 3.08% | 12.5% | 1.98 |
| AgentRx ( 2026 ) | 8.57% | 8.46% | 2.63% | 3.70% | 1.92% | 1.54% | 7.99% | 1.97 |
| ErrorProbe ( 2026 ) | 6.82% | 7.42% | 2.63% | 1.39% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 6.58% | 1.98 |
| SR by framework | Overall | ||||||
| Method | OpenManus | MetaGPT | Magentic-One | AG2 | SR | HIR | EB |
| Llama-3.1-8B backbone | |||||||
| Spark to Fire ( 2026 ) | 17.0% | 7.31% | 2.99% | 6.39% | 12.5% | 7.51% | 1.00 |
| SafeAgent ( 2026 ) | 20.3% | 20.6% | 0.80% | 20.9% | 18.4% | 5.50% | 1.00 |
| ARIA | 20.8% | 20.8% | 1.20% | 23.7% | 19.2% | 1.49% | 1.00 |
| Qwen2.5-7B backbone | |||||||
| In-domain | Unseen System | ||||
| Method | Backbone | SR | HIR | SR | HIR |
| Reference baselines | |||||
| Spark to Fire ( 2026 ) | Qwen2.5-7B | 17.4% | 7.18% | 16.8% | 9.18% |
| SafeAgent ( 2026 ) | Qwen2.5-7B | 18.2% | 5.05% | 17.6% | 6.19% |
| Backbone scale | |||||
| ARIA | Qwen2.5-1.5B | 15.8% | 6.67% | 15.0% | 8.18% |
| In-domain | Unseen System | |||
| Variant | SR | HIR | SR | HIR |
| Reference baselines | ||||
| Zero-shot | 11.7% | 10.3% | 9.78% | 11.4% |
| ARIA post-training variants | ||||
| Stage 1 only (w/o Stage 2 and Stage 3) | 14.5% | 8.22% | 12.4% | 8.78% |
| Stage 1 + 2 (w/o Stage 3) | 16.6% | 4.15% | 14.6% | 5.19% |
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Benchmark | Verification |
| GSM-Plus | Extracted numerical answer checked against the reference. |
| MMLU | Extracted option checked against the reference choice. |
| HumanEval | Generated code executed against the benchmark tests. |
| OlympiadBench | Answer-bearing mathematics tasks scored with the public mathematical-answer scorer. |
| GAIA | Validation tasks and attachments; public quasi-exact answer matching. |
| SWE-bench-Lite | Workspace patch evaluated by the official Docker harness. |
| Group | Categories |
| RA-1: Understanding & Planning | RA-1.1 Task misunderstanding RA-1.2 Contract misunderstanding RA-1.3 Faulty decomposition RA-1.4 Faulty role planning |
| RA-2: Evidence Grounding | RA-2.1 Insufficient retrieval RA-2.2 Misgrounded evidence RA-2.3 Extraction/aggregation error RA-2.4 Unsupported claim |
| RA-3: Reasoning & Decisions | RA-3.1 Invalid inference RA-3.2 Computation error RA-3.3 Finite evidence as proof RA-3.4 Incorrect decision |
| RA-4: Agent Coordination | RA-4.1 Lost shared state RA-4.2 Ignored correct evidence RA-4.3 Failed handoff RA-4.4 Non-progress cycle |
| RA-5: Tools & Implementation | RA-5.1 Unexecuted tool call RA-5.2 Incorrect tool call RA-5.3 Unrecovered tool failure RA-5.4 Unmaterialized artifact RA-5.5 Faulty implementation |
| RA-6: Verification & Completion | RA-6.1 Missing verification RA-6.2 Inadequate verification RA-6.3 Accepted failed check RA-6.4 Premature termination RA-6.5 Output handling error |
| Work | Failure taxonomy | Trace corpus | Step attribution | Test-time intervention | Verified repair | Learned predictor |
| Multi-Agent Risks ( 2025 ) | ✓ | |||||
| MAST ( 2025 ) | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
| MAS-FIRE ( 2026 ) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
| Who&When ( 2025 ) | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
| AgentRx ( 2026 ) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
| ErrorProbe ( 2026 ) | ✓ |
Multi-Agent LLM Systems
Multi-agent large language model systems coordinate multiple AI agents to solve tasks through communication, specialization, shared tools, and memory.
See all 1,032 papers