Multi-agent systems (MAS) can complete a task despite local execution errors that are corrected, bypassed, or carried forward without individually determining its outcome. We call these implicit failures (IFs) and study them as signals for process observability beyond final task outcome. Across 1,828 traces from nine MAS-benchmark configurations, IFs occur in 54.3% of successful and 75.2% of failed traces. We develop taxonomies of error types and subsequent absorption mechanisms, supported by human and cross-model annotation audits. Counterfactual replay further probes how repairing an IF changes the final outcome. To examine the practical value of IFs, we evaluate IF-based best-of-N trace selection against existing process reward models, and introduce a novel RL algorithm, IF-GRPO, that uses IF costs to refine preferences among successful trajectories in GRPO. Experiments show that IF-GRPO exhibits some gains in accuracy and process metrics. Importantly, it exposes trade-offs between task performance, IF count and cost, and token-normalized IF density. Overall, our results show that IFs provide complementary process observability into how MAS reach their outcomes, including error recovery, propagation, and IF-based process differences that final task success alone does not expose.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Example MAS traces for five absorption patterns. IFs are marked with crosses, with their resolution steps highlighted. Self-correction : WebWalker corrects its own navigation error to find the target. Self-workaround : The Assistant switches from flawed algebra to code to solve MathProxyAgent’s problem. Peer-repair : SimpleReviewer fixes a code error from SimpleTester. Orchestrator intervention : The Orchestrator redirects Assistant’s failed download to WebSurfer for scraping. Unresolved propagation : Browser’s wrong claim propagates downstream.
MAS
Benchmark
Underlying LLM
# Traces
# Success
# Failure
# IFs
Magentic-One
GAIA
GPT-4o
165
52
113
383
WebAgent (WebWalker)
WebWalkerQA
GPT-4o-mini
680
71
609
1090
MrlX
BrowseComp-Plus
Qwen3-8b
100
4
96
119
AG2 (MathChat)
OlympiadBench
GPT-4o
206
29
177
178
AG2 (MathChat)
GSMPlus
Claude-3.7-Sonnet & GPT-4o
223
44
179
214
AG2 (MathChat)
MMLU
GPT-4o
168
27
141
241
Table 1: Detailed profiles of the configurations in our study corpus.
Type
Description
Example
Share
Failed Tool Use
A tool call fails, is blocked, times out, cannot execute, or returns unusable output because of tool or environment issues.
FileSurfer attempts to read an MP3 audio file as text and receives a conversion exception.
24.5%
Wrong Action
The agent takes an action that is inappropriate for the current task state or unlikely to make progress.
WebSurfer clicks page text rather than a valid link or play button, leaving the browser on the same page.
23.0%
Unnecessary Action
The agent performs redundant, low-value, or repetitive actions that consume steps without advancing the task.
WebSurfer handles a cookie prompt instead of following the already identified target page.
16.4%
Hallucination
The agent fabricates information, tool behavior, source content, or intermediate evidence not supported by the trace.
The agent invents a ranked list item that is not present in the retrieved source.
15.3%
Incomplete Action
The agent attempts an action but omits required details, formatting, inputs, or follow-through.
FileSurfer repeatedly returns the first PDF page instead of searching or navigating to the relevant pages.
9.1%
Reasoning Error
The agent makes an incorrect inference, introduces or propagates incorrect information, repeats a known-bad strategy, misses relevant evidence, or terminates from insufficient reasoning.
The assistant swaps document statuses across several listed books, or the orchestrator identifies the wrong single from an album despite available evidence.
8.6%
Table 2: Taxonomy of IF Types and their share in the benchmark.
Absorption Mechanism
Success
Failure
Total
Share
Self-correction
34
585
619
20.3%
Trivial issue
77
1,037
1,114
36.6%
Orchestrator intervention
36
262
298
9.8%
Peer repair
4
38
42
1.4%
Self-workaround
23
412
435
14.3%
Unresolved propagation
51
485
536
17.6%
Table 3: Distribution of IF absorption mechanisms across the corpus, separated by trace outcome.
MAS
Benchmark
Traces
Unique Tasks
IFs
SPR (%)
RR (%)
ΔRR (pp) [95% CI]
AG2 (MathChat)
MMLU
100
100
138
100.0→99.0
1.0→42.0
+41.0[28.6,53.8]
ChatDev
MMLU
100
100
176
96.3→96.7
8.0→35.8
+27.8[15.8,39.9]
MetaGPT
MMLU
100
90
145
98.0→91.7
1.0→47.2
+46.2[33.0,60.0]
AG2 (MathChat)
OlympiadBench
100
98
104
82.0→78.0
28.0→51.0
+23.0[7.9,38.4]
AG2 (MathChat)
GSMPlus
100
82
164
89.3→90.5
42.1→49.4
+7.3[−3.0,17.7]
MagenticOne
GAIA
100
81
206
36.7→40.4
2.7→7.6
+4.9[−2.9,12.8]
Table 4: Matched no-op and IF-repair replay across seven MAS–benchmark configurations. Arrows indicate no-op → IF repair. SPR measures success preservation and RR measures failure rescue. Δ RR is the additional rescue rate under IF repair (percentage points), with 95% paired task-cluster bootstrap confidence intervals (5,000 resamples; unadjusted for multiple comparisons). Each configuration contains 50 originally successful and 50 failed traces. IF repair increases failure rescue by 23.0–46.2 pp beyond no-op replay in four configurations, demonstrating the potential of targeted IF interventions to recover failed executions.
Configuration
N
Random
PRM
IF
PRM+IF
MagenticOne / GAIA / PRInTS
4
19.3
18.2
25.0
23.5
8
19.8
21.2
24.2
23.5
16
17.7
19.7
26.5
25.0
AG2 / GSMPlus / Qwen2.5-Math-PRM
4
80.1
79.7
81.3
81.3
8
79.1
78.1
82.8
81.3
16
78.8
78.1
82.8
78.1
Table 5: Best-of- N task accuracy (%) across 3 configurations (MAS, benchmark, PRM) and N∈{4,8,16} . IF-based selection outperforms the evaluated PRMs in all nine comparisons, while PRM-only selection generally performs close to random, highlighting the additional process-quality information captured by IFs.
MAS
Benchmark
Accuracy (%)
IF Cost / Task
# IF / Task
IF Cost / 1K Tokens
# IF / 1K Tokens
AG2 (MathChat)
MMLU-Pro
54.98→57.06
1.42→1.51
1.14→1.41
4.37→2.39
3.49→2.22
+2.08 pp
+6.33%
+23.84%
-45.38%
-36.49%
GSMPlus
71.75→72.21
0.49→0.34
0.49→0.30
2.33→1.54
2.31→1.33
+0.46 pp
-30.83%
-39.66%
-33.92%
-42.37%
OlympiadBench
37.69→40.00
2.35→2.32
3.37→2.63
2.40→1.64
3.45→1.86
+2.31 pp
-0.98%
-21.91%
-31.71%
-46.18%
Table 6: GRPO versus IF-GRPO across seven MAS–benchmark configurations. Each configuration reports GRPO → IF-GRPO (first row) and its change (second row). “# IF” means the number of IFs. Green / red indicate improvement/deterioration. Bold indicates Holm-adjusted p<0.05 (two-sided paired permutation tests). IF-GRPO improves accuracy in six configurations, but per-task IF burden and token-normalized IF density can change in opposing directions, revealing process-level trade-offs invisible to task accuracy alone.
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Error Type
wtype
Hallucination
1.30
Reasoning Error
1.20
Wrong Action
1.10
Misunderstanding
1.10
Failed Tool Use
1.00
Malformed Output
1.00
Appendix
Table 7: The heuristic values of wtype for each error type.
Absorption Pattern
wabs
Trivial Issue
0.35
Self-correction
0.55
Self-workaround
0.65
Peer Repair
0.75
Orchestrator Intervention
0.80
Unresolved Propagation
1.40
Appendix
Table 8: The heuristic values of wabs for each absorption pattern.
Weights
Accuracy
IF Cost / Task
# IF / Task
IF Cost / 1K Tokens
# IF / 1K Tokens
Original
72.21
0.34
0.30
1.54
1.33
Uniform absorption
72.42
0.36
0.45
0.84
1.04
Uniform type
71.96
0.57
0.95
1.07
1.79
Perturbed
73.29
0.46
0.60
1.04
1.37
Appendix
Table 9: Sensitivity to IF severity weights on AG2/GSMPlus. Uniform sets the corresponding weights to one. Perturbed changes the original weights by up to 10%. All metrics are measured on the same evaluation benchmark.
While multi-agent systems (MAS) excel at complex reasoning, they are vulnerable to errors that intermediate agents introduce and downstream agents build upon. Auditing intermediate messages before they propagate requires an explicit standard, yet evaluation rubrics are typically authored by domain experts or written against a reference answer, neither of which is available for an unseen message at test time. We present MASRubric, a MAS information flow auditing framework with failure-distilled pitfall rubrics. Offline, trajectories on which the MAS has failed are automatically distilled into a reusable bank of pitfall criteria, each describing a recurrent error by its underlying misconception, the reasoning situations in which it arises, and the check that would expose it. Online, the criteria applicable to each intermediate message are retrieved from this off-the-shelf bank and checked one by one, and the resulting satisfaction rate decides whether the message is broadcast, returned to its author with diagnostic feedback for revision, or withheld. Empirical results demonstrate that MASRubric enhances MAS performance on both fixed and dynamic frameworks, achieving average accuracy gains of up to 2.83 points on math reasoning benchmarks and 1.74 points on code generation benchmarks. Further analysis shows that the retrieved criteria vary systematically with task types, and that the audit effort tracks task difficulty. Moreover, the bank transfers without re-mining to a system with a stronger backbone, which makes more adaptive and more efficient use of it. Our code and dataset are released at https://github.com/TonySY2/MASRubric.
Yutong Wang, Siyuan Xiong, Xuebo Liu +4
Harbin Institute of Technology, Shenzhen · Alibaba Group
Multi-agent systems (MAS) are increasingly deployed to solve complex tasks. In case of incorrect or unsatisfactory outputs, users have to manually locate agent mistakes by inspecting agent trajectories (i.e., {\em failure attribution}) and provide feedback to refine the outputs (i.e., {\em repair}). Despite some recent work in MAS failure attribution, automated mechanisms to recover from such mistakes remain largely unexplored. To bridge this gap, we propose MARS, a search-based framework that formulates MAS repair as a Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) process and navigates the vast space of potential repairs via diagnosis-guided expansion with taxonomy-augmented evaluation. Unlike standard MCTS, which evaluates a complete simulation via full rollout, MARS evaluates the agent trajectory using partial rollout to reduce token consumption. Furthermore, we introduce StateMAS, a large-scale MAS repair benchmark with 1,310 replayable multi-agent failure trajectories spanning four types of agent architectures and four LLM backbones. Experiments on StateMAS demonstrate that MARS consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods, achieving an absolute improvement from 3.0% to 12.1% across all settings, while maintaining a comparable token consumption cost. The ablation study further confirms that taxonomy-augmented evaluation and diagnosis-guided expansion are critical to achieving these performance gains.
When multi-agent systems (MAS) fail, identifying where the decisive error occurred is the first step for automated recovery to an earlier state. Error attribution remains a fundamental challenge due to the long interaction traces that large language model-based MAS generate. This paper presents a framework for error attribution based on conformal prediction (CP) which provides finite-sample, distribution-free coverage guarantees. We introduce new algorithms for filtration-based CP designed for sequential data such as agent trajectories. Unlike existing CP algorithms, our approach predicts sets that are contiguous sequences to enable efficient recovery and debugging. We verify our theoretical guarantees on a variety of agents and datasets, show that errors can be precisely isolated, then use prediction sets to rollback MAS to correct their own errors. Our overall approach is model-agnostic, and offers a principled uncertainty layer for MAS error attribution. We release code at https://github.com/layer6ai-labs/conformal-agent-error-attribution.
Naihe Feng, Yi Sui, Shiyi Hou +2
Dalhousie University · Halifax, NS, Canada · Layer 6 AI +1