Agent Failure Analysis

Large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems (MAS) often exhibit complex failure modes, which frequently cause agents to produce incorrect outcomes. This motivates the task of Agent Failure Attribution: given a failed multi-agent trajectory, identify the faulty agents and their corresponding error types. Existing approaches predominantly rely on LLMs to perform failure attribution, either through direct prompting, fine-tuning on synthetic data or complex agentic pipelines. While effective, these methods incur substantial computational overhead due to long-context processing, expensive post-training and handcrafted workflows. Moreover, empirical evidence shows that even state-of-the-art models achieve limited accuracy on existing benchmarks, suggesting that scaling model size alone is insufficient. In this work, we revisit this task and question the necessity of such expensive generative solutions. We introduce AFANet, a lightweight graph-based framework that models interaction trajectories through step-level semantic signals and agent-level relationships. We show that with significantly fewer parameters and near-zero inference cost, AFANet (i) matches or outperforms LLM-based baselines, including fine-tuned models on in-domain benchmarks, (ii) maintains robust performance across different GNN architectures and (iii) can be further improved with inexpensive test-time adaptation on the OOD benchmark. Our results suggest that effective agent failure attribution does not require heavy LLM reasoning and a lightweight, structured approach can achieve strong performance.

Current evaluation of computer-use agents is split between long-horizon workflow benchmarks and atomic GUI-grounding tests. This leaves an under-instrumented middle layer: realistic component-centered interactions (e.g., toggle a button set) that are short enough to diagnose and rich enough to capture the burdens of modern interfaces. We present ComponentBench, a benchmark and diagnostic pipeline for component-level evaluation of computer-use agents on modern web UIs. ComponentBench is organized around a library-agnostic ontology of 97 canonical UI components instantiated as 2,910 programmatically verified tasks across widely used component libraries, paired with cleaned human reference trajectories that enable evaluation of both task success and interaction efficiency. Beyond task collection, we introduce a scalable pipeline for auditing realized structural difficulty after implementation and synthesizing structured failure analyses across tasks and component families. Evaluating seven models -- GPT-5.4, Gemini 3 Flash, GPT-5.4 mini, GPT-5 mini, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite, Qwen3-VL-235B, and UI-TARS-1.5-7B -- across four observation and action spaces, we show that these design choices critically impact performance. Within a single shared harness, changing only the observation and action space shifts task success by more than 30% for the same model: GPT-5 mini falls from 83.1% with accessibility-tree observations to 48.9% with coordinate-only Pixel control. Moreover, even the fastest configuration takes 3.7x as long as the matched human reference, and spatial manipulations that are trivial for humans continue to challenge current agents.

We introduce AgentRelBench, an environment-agnostic reliability instrument that computes ground-truth, severity-priced damage from database state diffs across repeated runs, with no LLM in the measurement path, demonstrated on EnterpriseOps-Gym. Across 2,128 evaluation runs spanning nine models in six families (four development, three pre-registered held-out, plus a frontier pass on two frontier-tier models that the pre-registration designates exploratory), we find: (1) damage on irreversible actions is universal across the families we measured and stochastic within them on pinned, single-provider stacks. (2) No task damaged on every run: zero always-fail cells across 42 confirmatory held-out damage events. A single clean run misses a damage-producing (model, task) pair 0.80 of the time on the development pool (13 pairs); the held-out pool is descriptively consistent (0.575 over 5 pairs, pair-weighted) but sits below our pre-registered power floor and is reported as underpowered, not as confirmation. (3) Damage-producing task count falls with model capability, from 7 of 20 tasks for an 8B model to 1 of 20 for the most capable; capability is confounded with family and training, so this is an observed gradient, not a causal claim. The residual damage does not change in character: in the exploratory frontier pass, the most capable model's one damaging task damages at $\hat{p} = 0.16$ per run, inside the same demonstrably-stochastic band, and a single audit misses it 84% of the time. (4) One model family committed the gated irreversible change while declaring it had refused: transcript- and judge-based grading scores those runs as safe refusals, only state diffs as damage. All confirmatory findings were pre-registered with per-claim demote criteria; one demoted our own initially favored finding, which we report.

AI has long assisted scientific research, but the rapid advance of LLMs and agentic scaffolds is reshaping the landscape; a single system can now carry whole-stage research from an initial hypothesis all the way to final published paper, which is a paradigm now referred to as AutoResearch. Existing evaluations reveal little about how these agents operate or where they break down. Tasks are narrowly-scoped, evaluation measures performance but not process, and failure diagnoses lack systematic coverage or artifact-level visibility. To address this gap, we introduce AutoResearchEval, featuring 100 tasks grounded in published frontier science across 7 scientific domains and the full research lifecycle, including ideation, retrieval, execution, analysis, writing, and review. Evaluating 8 harness-model combinations yields 800 autoresearch agent trajectories, with process-level annotation. We organize these insights into AutoResearch Failure Taxonomy or ARFT, a framework of 45 empirically-grounded failure patterns. To enable scalable fine-grained attribution, we leverage a human-calibrated agent-as-a-judge pipeline to inspect complete trajectories and intermediate artifacts. Failure patterns converge on a single overarching limitation, namely that current agents lack a metacognitive loop, which entails the ability to check what they produced against what they found, revise when it does not hold up, and question whether the path they took was sound. The same patterns recur across all 8 harness-model combinations, including the strongest models tested, locating the deficit at the model level rather than in any particular scaffold; whether orchestration-level interventions can close it is an open question this work does not test. We publicly release AutoResearchEval and ARFT to facilitate continued research and development in autonomous scientific discovery.

Compositional reliability bounds for multi-agent systems multiply component reliabilities, a step licensed by a conditional-independence assumption that is routinely stated and rarely tested. We test it. Two instances of one model, in a two-agent handoff, co-fail on 90.0% of the missions on which either fails (log OR 6.66, 95% CI [6.38, 7.00]; phi 0.916), in a preregistered evaluation of 18,000 missions scored by deterministic code with no LLM judge. Substituting a different model reduces the association in six of six contrasts; substituting a different vendor, model already different, does not -- a registered hypothesis reported as a null. The error is signed and runs against the operator: positive dependence inflates joint failure above the independence product, so redundancy is over-credited exactly when components share a model. The assumption-free alternative is often vacuous, and fitting a dependence model is worse: we prove a bootstrap bound on a fitted model's functional loses coverage of the truth as n grows, the identification gap being O(1) while the bootstrap haircut is O(n^{-1/2}). More data makes such a certificate worse, with no visible symptom. We give a finite-sample certificate assuming no dependence structure: a linear program over the joint, over a Bonferroni-Clopper-Pearson box around measured co-execution moments. It is sound, sharp for the information supplied, and monotone in the moment family. Enriching ten moment functionals to fourteen narrows the identified interval by 85.7% and lifts the certified floor from 0.2455 to 0.4116. A companion anytime-valid certificate holds type-I error at 0.0471 under optional stopping. Common dependence statistics are marginal-bounded and can reverse an apparent ordering of conditions when the compared agents fail at different rates. Contracts, scoring code, analysis scripts, and the preregistration are released.

Self-correction is particularly useful when a failure constrains the next repair. Coding agents benefit from this property because compilers, tests, and execution traces turn many failures into typed recovery signals, but broad language-agent tasks often expose only a coarse task failure. This creates a tension for generic recovery playbooks: they broaden the agent's context precisely when the system needs a narrower repair interface, mixing incompatible signals for invalid actions, missing procedures, and strict-format errors. Our insight is that development-set failures can recover part of the missing diagnostic substrate by deciding which recovery interventions are admissible before test-time correction. We propose DARC, a diagnosis-guided recovery harness that profiles task-family failure modes, prunes mismatched interventions from a shared recovery library, and freezes a verifier-selected success-cost policy for deployment. This causal order makes correction selective: the harness first determines what kind of failure can be repaired, then decides how much recovery evidence to spend. In ALFWorld, AppWorld, and XBRL Finance, the same protocol yields an action-validity harness, a procedural-recovery fallback, and a format-precision retrieval policy; in each evaluated setting it improves average task performance over base agents and broad playbooks while reducing environment steps or retrieval budget. Our experiments show that failures need not trigger uniformly more context: DARC turns self-correction from prompt expansion into recovery-interface design. DARC provides a practical route toward more reliable agents in domains where compiler-like feedback is absent: making failures actionable before making contexts larger.

Failure attribution in LLM-based multi-agent systems (MAS) aims to answer who caused failures, when they occurred, and why by identifying responsible targets including faulty agents, erroneous steps, and failure modes. Existing methods have primarily focused on developing dedicated models for specific attribution targets, with limited attention to the evidential dependencies among them. Despite these attribution targets are different, they rely on common diagnostic evidence from MAS trajectories, including task constraints, agent roles, behavioral histories and inter-agent interactions. This commonality motivates us to develop a unified representation model that aggregates the trajectory evidence into individual agent and step representations, which can subsequently be adapted to different attribution targets. Accordingly, we propose ASCon, a direction-aware reciprocal Agent--Step Contextualization model for multiple failure attribution targets. ASCon introduces direction-aware graph attention to model execution context, masked step-to-agent attention to construct behavior-aware agent representations, and agent-conditioned step contextualization to incorporate agent context back into step representations. The resulting contextualized representations enable different attribution targets through lightweight target-specific heads. Experiments show that ASCon can improve faulty-agent detection by 5.83%+ in micro-accuracy, faulty-step detection by 10.63%+ in micro-accuracy, and failure-mode detection by 14.73%+ in Macro-F1. Meanwhile, it can also substantially enhance the LLM-based methods' attribution capabilities in out-of-domain scenarios.

Production AI agents fail when their context sources -- system prompts, knowledge bases, tool descriptions, and procedural skills -- contain errors or gaps. Current maintenance relies on manual log review and ad-hoc debugging, creating a scalability bottleneck as interaction volume grows. We present TRACE (TRajectory Attribution for Automated Context Engineering), an automated feedback loop that mines historical agent trajectories to diagnose and remediate context failures. Our key insight is that trajectories are rich with implicit dissatisfaction signals -- user corrections, rephrasing, abandonment cues -- that reveal precisely where context sources failed, without explicit feedback collection. Unlike model fine-tuning, TRACE operates on the context layer, enabling rapid iteration without retraining. We make four contributions: (1) a trajectory mining framework that systematically extracts diagnostic information from historical agent executions; (2) multi-component causal attribution that extends textual gradients from monolithic prompt optimization to heterogeneous context sources (skills, knowledge bases, tools, prompts); (3) exploratory verification, where agents actively read context sources to distinguish content gaps requiring CREATE from stale content requiring UPDATE, achieving 96% operation accuracy; and (4) a reusable simulation methodology and verifiable benchmark addressing the absence of open datasets for context debugging, with a six-category fault taxonomy, ground truth annotations, and a cross-layer verification protocol. On 60 dissatisfaction traces spanning three complexity tiers (up to 16 execution nodes), TRACE achieves 72.7% root cause attribution and 82% end-to-end fix effectiveness, showing that over 80% of context-layer failures can be automatically diagnosed and remediated by mining historical trajectories, an overlooked resource in production systems.

Modern cyber-physical and AI-assisted systems couple human operators, AI decision modules, and automated controllers in a single control loop, so trustworthiness depends on the whole loop, not any one model. Yet no standard benchmark captures time-aligned, multi-layer traces of how drift and failures propagate across these layers, so we cannot diagnose where coordination breaks down, why, or how to recover. This paper targets one facet of that gap: drift, a deviation that can originate in any stack layer and that conventional single-modality monitoring cannot localize to a layer or pin to an onset time. We construct a benchmark by injecting controlled drift into traces derived from ALFRED, a grounded-instruction benchmark for everyday household tasks, yielding 1,918 drifted traces. Each trace is a time-aligned sequence of per-step records across five execution layers (state, observation, decision, rules, control), labeled with the drift type, affected layer, onset time, responsible actor, and causal mechanism, and validated by independent raters with inter-annotator agreement reported. We pair the dataset with a leak-aware protocol that removes a near-perfect onset leak, and a baseline study across classical, recurrent, and attention-based model families. Under this honest protocol, drift is identifiable and attributable well above random and majority baselines across every family (affected layer macro-F1 near 0.70, responsible actor near 0.85, causal mechanism near 0.49), and heavy attention offers no advantage over simpler models on this symbolic benchmark.

LLM-based agentic systems have shown remarkable capabilities in complex domains, while suffering from cascading errors and difficulty in debugging. Critical error detection aims to locate the earliest error step in a failed trajectory that is responsible for the final failure. However, progress faces two main challenges. First, long trajectories make it difficult to identify individual errors, since the evidence for judging a step may be scattered across distant instructions, observations, and prior context. Second, failed trajectories often contain multiple local errors with different downstream effects, only some of which remain responsible for the final failure. In this work, we propose TrajDebug, an error-lifecycle tracing framework that addresses long-trajectory error discovery with multi-granularity history compression and evidence-based error identification, and supports critical attribution by tracing each error's resolution status and terminal impact. We further construct TrajErrBench, a benchmark of 486 manually annotated failed trajectories from Tau2Bench and SWE-Bench Pro, covering realistic tool-use and coding scenarios. Experiments across diverse agent benchmarks show that TrajDebug achieves the best overall performance over existing baselines, and application studies further demonstrate that its diagnoses provide actionable feedback for improving downstream agent success. We will release the codes and data to facilitate further research.

Multi-agent orchestration frameworks are moving from demos to production, yet benchmarks typically report task accuracy without diagnosing why a pipeline failed, where a cascade began, or which routing decision caused the breakdown. OrchestraBench evaluates failure, recovery, and decomposition through a controlled, seed-reproducible failure-injection harness over templated enterprise workflows. It introduces cascade radius and per-failure-mode recovery as primary metrics and compares routing policies with bootstrap confidence intervals and paired tests. On a 26-case gold-labelled diagnostic, a keyword/flag router scored 0% on adversarial cases with misleading or missing surface flags, whereas an intent-reasoning model router scored 100%, matching the oracle. Controlled mechanism probes with a real Claude agent over a verifiable arithmetic dependency chain revealed three failure-handling tiers across five MAST modes: tool faults recovered fully (1.0), ambiguous delegation recovered partially (0.30), and three latent or semantic modes never recovered (0.0). This ordering persisted when the computation was reframed as a loan-approval workflow and across Sonnet, Opus, and Haiku, although absolute rates shifted with context. Blind retry reproduced latent faults and increased time to detection, indicating that detection and attribution are necessary for containment. Cascade radius increased with pipeline depth (mean 0.9 to 4.7 across depths 3-7). A trusted-state repair ablation showed that apparent containment gains primarily came from the trusted-state signal rather than autonomous detection. These results are controlled-chain mechanism probes, not domain-workload claims.

Deep search agents tackle challenging questions through long-horizon web interactions, a process that is both complex and fragile: small reasoning errors may propagate through long, noisy trajectories into fluent but incorrect answers. Diagnosing such failures is difficult, requiring the manual inspection of extremely long execution traces, which could be beyond human capacity. We therefore introduce SearchAuditBench, a benchmark that evaluates whether LLM auditors can localize, attribute, and repair these failures, thereby reducing the human burden. SearchAuditBench comprises 1,243 failed trajectories, averaging 73.1 messages and 65.1K tokens, collected from eight open-weight models on five deep-search benchmarks, each expert-annotated with the critical error step, a search-specific root cause, and a reference repair with grading rubrics. We further propose SearchAuditor, a multi-perspective auditing framework that effectively localizes, attributes, and repairs search-agent failures through evidence-grounded adjudication. Experimental results show that even the strongest baseline, when powered by a frontier model like GPT-5.5, attains only a 26.6% end-to-end pass rate. In contrast, our SearchAuditor consistently outperforms all baselines across different frontier models, achieving an end-to-end pass rate of 32.3%, and resuming failed runs with its repairs enables agents to better recover from errors.

How do you verify a long-horizon agent when its own state and self-reports are exactly what you cannot trust? We present an agent instrument built so that verification is structural rather than post-hoc. A deterministic Executive owns all belief; a language model may only file typed proposals, and a claim is admitted only when a prediction pre-registered before acting is matched against observation by code. Two properties make the instrument a verifier of its own science, not just of the agent: every run invalidates itself when per-organ write-error, render-size, or salted-canary-echo floors are breached (four of the first eight architecture runs were invalidated, each localizing a real defect); and a render-invisible shadow reference compiles the plan the full system would have committed in every ablation cell, so drift metrics are defined even where the mechanism under test has been removed. Using this instrument we report a clean, single-variable result on a failure every long-horizon agent suffers: ablating the commitment mechanism flips goal-abandonment from 0.00 to 1.00 while binding error stays flat at 0.00 (three seeds per cell, up to 394 reference beats per run, every run gated valid). The binding channel, by contrast, does not reappear as per-beat drift when its repair is ablated -- because binding is code-owned, the failure class is structurally absorbed, its only residue appearing one layer upstream as a collapse in hypothesis formation. We report these under full disclosure that task efficacy is null (zero level completions across 52 gated runs on ARC-AGI-3), pre-registered as a structural defeater. The contribution is a verification methodology for agent development and the drift decomposition it makes measurable.

LLM multi-agent systems suffer from Correctness Collapse, where high task-level accuracy conceals severe process-level failures. This is especially hazardous in safety-critical embodied settings such as automotive cockpits, where lexically correct utterances may trigger dangerous physical operations. Existing attribution methods rely on text traces alone, missing dependency structure, multi-channel evidence, and safety-aware evaluation. We introduce CockpitHAT, a hierarchical attribution framework that replaces positional windows with dependency-distance thresholds from interaction DAGs, integrates multi-channel evidence via an embodied adapter, and applies a safety-uplift to high-risk failures during confidence-weighted analyst consensus. We further release CockpitBench, a benchmark of 212 annotated failure traces spanning dialogue, vehicle-state, environmental, and memory channels, each labeled with ISO 26262 ASIL severity via three-expert consensus. On the public Who&When benchmark, CockpitHAT achieves agent-level / step-exact accuracies of 77.9% / 37.8% on the Hand-Crafted split and 86.5% / 46.0% on the Algorithm-Generated split, surpassing the text-only SOTA ECHO by up to 17.6 / 16.7 points. On CockpitBench, it attains 78.3% agent-level and 38.2% step-exact accuracy. These results establish dependency-aware, multi-channel, risk-calibrated attribution as an effective paradigm for reliable failure diagnosis in real-world embodied LLM multi-agent systems.

Computer-use agents (CUAs) operate real desktop and web interfaces through screenshots, mouse and keyboard actions, and stateful UI feedback, yet their failures remain difficult to diagnose and repair. Unlike text-only agents, CUA failures arise from coupled visual perception, spatial grounding, low-level interaction, task reasoning, and environment dynamics, making debugging a distinctive multimodal causal localization problem. We introduce CUADebug, a framework for diagnosing and repairing CUA failures. CUADebug includes a CUA-specific error taxonomy, CUAErrorBench, a human-annotated OSWorld failure benchmark, and CUADebugger, a tool-augmented debugger. Instead of prompting over the full trajectory once, CUADebugger actively inspects suspicious steps with paired before/after screenshots and action traces, then submits a structured diagnosis containing the root-cause step, error type, grounded evidence, and corrective strategy for re-execution. Human annotations over 204 failed trajectories show that task reasoning and control is the largest failure family (110/204), followed by perception (36), grounding/interaction (25), external/system (13), and an others category of 20 OSWorld infeasible-task cases. On the main Claude-agent split, CUADebugger improves joint subtype-and-step diagnosis from 11.2% to 19.6% with Gemini 2.5 Pro and improves consistently across debugger backbones. In single re-execution package evaluation, RCA-based conditions achieve higher task completion than history-only continuation (28.47% with machine RCA and 29.90% with our method, versus 13.89%); in continual re-execution, our method improves success from 12.2% to 25.86%, while human-oracle guidance reaches 29.21%. These results show that CUA root-cause diagnosis can provide actionable repair signals rather than merely post-hoc explanations.

Existing evaluations often reduce agent failures to system-level outcomes, obscuring where the fault originated and which intervention would improve the agent system. This creates a repair-assignment problem: the same visible failure may call for model post-training, harness engineering, environment redesign, or benchmark repair depending on its source. Because agent behavior emerges from interactions among models, harnesses, users, tools, memory, and environments, outcome-level labels are often insufficient for improvement. Most failure taxonomies do little to resolve this problem because they are benchmark-specific and lack a shared structure. We introduce an interaction-centric taxonomy that localizes failures to the interactions in which they originate and identifies the responsible component. It organizes 41 failure modes by assigning each to an edge between two components and a fault side indicating where the repair belongs. This makes the taxonomy actionable: model-side failures identify targets for post-training, harness-side failures point to scaffolding and tool-integration fixes, and environment or grader failures reveal evaluation conditions requiring redesign. The schema applies across agent architectures, from coding assistants to long-horizon personal assistants and multi-agent systems. We ground the taxonomy in worked examples from public benchmarks, model system cards, published reports, and logged agent trajectories, and evaluate its reproducibility using independent reasoning agents as judges. Across four frontier models, the strongest judge reaches Cohen's $κ=0.76$ against human category labels, suggesting that the categories capture shared structure rather than annotator-specific preferences.

Computer-use agents (CUA) are being deployed to browse the web and operate desktop software, yet their benchmark scores are still commonly produced by brittle scripted oracles. A score is the output of a pipeline in which tasks can be stale, trajectories can omit decisive visual evidence, evaluators can reject valid alternatives, and aggregate reports can hide the cause of failure. We organize these problems into a reliability framework spanning task construction, trajectory observation, scoring, and reporting. We then audit 150 public failure-scored trajectories from five web, enterprise-workflow, and desktop-control benchmarks, find that 15.3% of FAIL verdicts are wrong: 10.7% are evaluator false negatives and 4.7% are broken tasks. For genuine failures, a three-tier diagnostic taxonomy shows that verification/feedback and planning failures dominate execution/grounding errors, while a single scalar success rate can not explain. We connect these findings to newer long-horizon CUA benchmarks and derive stage-specific design rules for CUA evaluation.

Agent self-evolution has primarily focused on learning how to act, while overlooking an equally important capability: learning to discover what an agent does not know. Existing approaches typically assume that failure discovery is given, focusing on how to repair failures once they are identified. We ask whether blind-spot diagnosis itself can be learned. We thus study diagnosis as an agent capability separate from execution, and exclude two alternative sources of progress: executor adaptation and human supervision. Under these constraints, performance cannot improve through executor updates or annotated examples, forcing all improvements to originate from the learned diagnostic capability. We propose SkillMentor, which trains a Mentor policy via reinforcement learning to generate diagnostic tasks, identify recurrent failure modes, and curate them into reusable corrective skills. Across AppWorld and BFCLv3, SkillMentor improves executor performance by an average of 44.2%. These results suggest that blind-spot diagnosis is a learnable capability, enabling self-evolution without updating executor weights or relying on human-curated data.

Generate--test--revise loops are common in coding agents, but repetition alone provides no reliability guarantee. We study the gap between finding a correct patch and retaining, verifying, and submitting it. A sealed five-seed study over 30 HumanEval repairs produces 900 three-revision trajectories. Under forced revision, current correctness with current traces falls from 0.820 after one revision to 0.673 after two, although ever-correct rises to 0.847. Two common-state studies use 2,430 branches from identical frozen programs to remove post-treatment risk-set bias. In a prespecified 14B replication, stale traces harm 34/135 correct starts versus 4/135 with current traces, a 22.2-point increase (task-cluster 95% CI $[8.9,37.0]$, exact Holm $p=0.0337$). A prospective 540-rollout policy eliminates observed correct-start harm but reduces wrong-start repair and fails its joint criterion. Repository experiments over 24 bugs and four coder stacks expose floor effects and component heterogeneity without Holm-significant effects. We therefore separate admission, preservation, grounded certification, competence, and liveness. We derive an evidence-bound typed loop contract and instantiate its mechanically enforceable subset in a reference implementation that binds verifier evidence to exact code states, preserves verified checkpoints, and emits auditable admission receipts. The implementation is an executable specification and conformance artifact, not evidence of improved repair competence or calibrated verifier dependence.

LLM agent failures are difficult to debug because the step where an error surfaces is often not the one that caused it. Existing observability tools replay execution traces but provide little support for identifying the root cause or translating diagnosis into recovery. We present AgentDebugX, an open-source debugging framework that organizes debugging as a closed loop of Detect, Attribute, Recover, and Rerun. At its core, DeepDebug performs multi-turn root-cause diagnosis through global trajectory understanding, structure-guided investigation, and cross-examination. On the Who and When benchmark, DeepDebug achieves the best strict attribution accuracy among the evaluated methods on both tested open-weight backbones, reaching 28.8 percent exact agent-and-step accuracy on qwen3.5-9b versus 21.7 percent for the strongest single-pass baseline. On GAIA, DeepDebug repairs 13 of 73 failed tasks in a single rerun, compared with 4 to 6 for three decoupled self-correction baselines, improving overall accuracy from 55.8 percent to 63.6 percent. AgentDebugX exposes this workflow through a Python library, CLI, web console, and installable agentic skill, and provides an opt-in Error Hub for sharing scrubbed failure-diagnosis-repair bundles and reusing them as debugging memory.

Methods for discovering rare failures in autonomous systems have so far been demonstrated almost exclusively in simulations with simple, academic driving stacks, leaving open whether they generalize to the more robust planners used in commercial systems. We address this gap by applying two rare-event discovery algorithms to a commercial autonomous trucking stack. Adaptive stress testing (AST) uses reinforcement learning to search for the most likely noise trajectories leading to a simulated collision, while diffusion-based failure sampling (DiFS) trains a denoising diffusion model to sample a diverse set of failures. We show that both algorithms find simulated collisions during merge and cut-in maneuvers where traditional Monte Carlo simulation does not. To make these failures actionable, we introduce a statistical analysis based on principal component analysis (PCA) that classifies failures into common modes and identifies the timesteps that most influence the outcome. We cluster the principal components and invert the PCA transform to recover generalized noise trajectories, and show that these trajectories reproduce failures in identical and similar scenarios. This provides a path from failure discovery to systematic diagnosis of perception-level flaws.

An agent system's execution traces record how it fails, and procedures that improve such a system without changing model weights (trajectory selection, prompt and workflow optimization, runtime monitoring) read these traces for feedback. Yet raw traces are a poor medium for accumulating that feedback: long, instance-specific, and lacking a stable vocabulary for recurring failures. We argue that an agent system should instead maintain an explicit representation of how it fails, induced from its own behavior and reusable wherever failure feedback is needed. AdaMAST builds this representation by converting a target system's traces into a compact, evidence-grounded failure taxonomy: named failure codes organized along three fixed axes (system-level, role-specific, and domain-specific), with every name, definition, and evidence pattern induced from the traces; no code is hand-authored, no trace human-annotated. The taxonomy is not merely a post-hoc diagnostic but a shared feedback interface, improving agents in three ways. In agent-system search, taxonomy-coded diagnoses of failed candidates outperform free-form reflection on all five benchmarks we test. At runtime, taxonomy feedback raises SWE-agent's resolution on SWE-bench Verified Mini from 60% with free-text reflection to 70%, and improves Claude Code from 64.0% to 70.7% as a runtime skill. In trajectory selection, AdaMAST-Judge, a verifier built on the induced codes, improves best-of-5 accuracy on Terminal-Bench 2.0 by 8-15 points over Pass@1. The vocabulary itself is compact (an order-of-magnitude compression that preserves trace distinctions), human-faithful (matching expert failure annotations more closely than a hand-crafted reference vocabulary), and adaptive (taxonomies induced for different domains share few codes). Adaptive failure taxonomies close the loop between the traces agents produce and the procedures that improve them.

Root cause analysis (RCA) of microservice failures requires reasoning over telemetry far larger than a model's context, so a language agent reasons over extracted evidence. We start from an error analysis of such an agent on OpenRCA. A reverse reasoning agent reconstructs an evidence chain to each labelled cause and compares it against the agent's own trace, locating failures where a grounded chain existed but was not followed; its labels agree with two site reliability engineers. Being label-conditioned, it audits evidence rather than testing forward identifiability, leaving open what the agent lacked: procedure or telemetry-specific knowledge. Existing systems cannot separate them, extracting evidence inside the reasoning loop. We compute the evidence once, offline, and supply it identically to every arm. Rules mined from the audit reports of one Market cloudbed raise Full Score on a held-out cloudbed from 14.10 to 35.90, surviving correction for multiple testing, against 24.36 for manual rules and 19.23 for a label-and-schema control. The rules add 17 solved cases on top of the five-step procedure but 11 without it, the repairs overlapping. Removing the procedure raises Full Score in all three conditions tested, though no contrast survives correction. Deleting only its earliest-onset criterion yields a net gain of 8 cases against 11 for the whole procedure, which we report descriptively. Mining is label-supervised, and all results are specific to OpenRCA.

Failure attribution for LLM-based agentic systems, i.e., identifying which steps in a failure trajectory caused the task to fail, is critical for debugging and improving these systems. Existing approaches either rely on prompting-based pipelines, which are computationally expensive, or require post-training on failure trajectories with step-level error annotations, which are costly to collect and difficult to scale. We argue that a practical failure attribution model should be lightweight and trainable without step-level supervision on failure data. To this end, we address unsupervised failure attribution, i.e., training exclusively on successful trajectories and identifying error steps at inference time given a failure trajectory. We propose OAT, which casts this problem as one-class learning with neural controlled differential equations, modeling the dynamical pattern of successful trajectories in latent space. At inference time, each step in a failure trajectory is assigned an anomaly score based on its deviation from the dynamics learned on successful trajectories, which is then used to form a set of error steps. With training on only 100 successful trajectories, experiments show that OAT is 200--5000 $\times$ faster than prompting-based baselines, and, at the same time, consistently outperforms them in both in-domain and out-of-distribution datasets with +20% and +7% F1 scores, respectively, demonstrating that OAT is a promising and efficient direction for diagnosing agentic system failures.

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.

Large language model (LLM) coding agents are increasingly deployed to autonomously perform software engineering tasks in terminal-based environments, making their reliability a growing concern. Existing empirical studies investigate why coding agents fail, yet they largely treat failure as a final outcome rather than a temporal process, providing limited insight into how failures emerge, evolve, and become unrecoverable. We present the first large-scale empirical study of CLI coding-agent failure trajectories, introducing a process-oriented framework that analyzes failure through its onset, evolution, and recovery across execution trajectories. We first collect 3,843 execution trajectories generated by seven frontier models across three coding-agent scaffolds (OpenHands, MiniSWE, and Terminus2) on Terminal-Bench, then carefully filter them to obtain 1,794 complete and valid trajectories for manual annotation (over 63,000 execution steps), from which we derive 14 findings spanning failure occurrence, root causes, recovery, and cross-system consistency. Our findings show that coding-agent failures are predominantly driven by epistemic errors, typically begin within the first few execution steps, and often remain hidden until recovery is no longer possible, suggesting that improving coding-agent reliability requires earlier validation and intervention rather than relying solely on final-outcome evaluation.

Large language model (LLM) based multi-agent systems enable complex problem solving through coordinated reasoning and action, but their distributed structure also introduces new challenges in diagnosing system-level failures. When an execution fails, identifying which agent is responsible and at what point the trajectory first becomes irreversibly misdirected is difficult due to long-horizon interactions and tightly coupled agent behaviors. In this paper, we study the problem of failure localization in LLM-based multi-agent systems and present AgentLocate, a framework that attributes failures to both a specific agent and the earliest decisive step. AgentLocate combines an LLM-based judging mechanism with multi-perspective verification by independent evaluators, whose assessments are aggregated using a confidence-aware strategy. The resulting feedback is further used to adapt the judge through lightweight fine-tuning, improving attribution quality. We evaluate AgentLocate on two complementary benchmarks covering diverse tasks, agent configurations, and trajectory lengths. Experimental results show that AgentLocate consistently outperforms existing failure localization methods in identifying both responsible agents and failure steps, while remaining efficient in terms of token usage and running time.

The optimization of long-horizon agents increasingly relies on reflection-based mechanisms, where a large language model (LLM) acts as an optimizer to diagnose agent failures and improve agent policies. However, real execution traces are difficult to use directly for optimization: large trace collections are often redundant and heterogeneous, making optimization inefficient and prone to overfitting to low-value failures; meanwhile, each individual trajectory also contains many irrelevant steps, while naive context reduction methods such as truncation or sliding windows can discard causally important evidence and produce misleading optimization signals. To resolve this dilemma, we introduce STRACE (Structural TRajectory Analysis and Causal Extraction), a framework that constructs high signal-noise optimization contexts for more precise and effective optimization. At the batch level, STRACE mines failure patterns to filter redundant traces and retain representative failures; within each selected trace, it performs causal localization over a textual dependency graph to remove non-causal steps and identify the true root-cause module for optimization. Empirical results demonstrate that STRACE significantly outperforms standard context-filtering baselines. Notably, on a challenging formal verification task (VeruSAGE-Bench), it successfully optimizes human-expert designed agents, delivering $1.4\times$ success-rate improvement (42.5% to 58.5%). The code is available at https://github.com/moomight/STRACE .

Tool-using LLM agents can violate the very policies they are deployed to enforce while appearing to complete the task successfully. In policy-permissive environments, a tool may execute any well-formed call even when the corresponding state transition is forbidden by domain policy. The result is a silent wrong state (a booking cancelled, a passenger count changed, a claim acted on without verification) that neither the tool nor the agent's self-report exposes. We study this failure mode in the $τ^2$-bench airline domain. On a budget agent, 78% of observed failures are silent wrong-state failures with no tool error, and the aggregate failure rate is reproducible across disjoint seeds, not sampling noise. We then evaluate a lightweight intervention: deterministic, read-only pre-execution gates that inspect the proposed call and current state before allowing a write. A four-gate suite raises full-benchmark success from 29.6% to 42.0% on gpt-4o-mini (+12.4pp; paired task-level bootstrap P=0.0012), and the lift reproduces on a disjoint 15-seed set (+12.3pp; P=0.0008). The effect is concentrated where the gates fire: on the 26/50 firing tasks, success rises by +19.2pp, while movement on the 24 non-firing tasks does not exclude zero. Two negative controls (a self-enforcing retail domain and BFCL) bound the mechanism: gates help when tools are policy-permissive and add little where tools already self-enforce. As suggestive evidence, not a central claim, the same failure mode persists at the frontier: gpt-5.2 at default reasoning still attempts policy-violating writes, and the same suite improves success from 61.2% to 71.6% (+10.4pp; P=0.020; n=5, no replication). The contribution is a bounded evaluation and reliability result: deterministic gates do not guarantee task success, but they can deterministically prevent a known class of silent policy-violating writes at the action boundary.

Industrial agentic AI systems increasingly exhibit a gap between prototype capability and production deployment. In particular, adaptive agents may generate plausible outputs while remaining difficult to verify under non-determinism, confidentiality constraints, limited context, and weak observability. This paper formulates a bounded verification protocol for adaptive agentic controllers represented by finite symbolic rules, explicit diagnostic predicates, explanation logs, and held-out re-evaluation. The central research question is: when an adaptive agentic controller is represented through finite rules, explicit diagnostic predicates, explanation logs, and held-out re-evaluation, which classes of controller failure can be detected, locally repaired, or rejected without relying on unrestricted human-in-the-loop judgment? The proposed framework treats the controller as a finite revisable object. Diagnostic failures are mapped to predefined rule-level edits, including rule addition, rule deletion, and priority revision. Repaired controllers are then evaluated on held-out simulation seeds or cloned initial states. Experiments in a stylized financially constrained inventory-control benchmark show three outcomes: resource-induced failures that remain non-repairable by one rule edit, partial repairs that are rejected because they violate thresholds or guardrails, and a local one-step repair of an order-volatility failure induced by removing a smoothing rule. The contribution is methodological and provides a simulation-compatible procedure for testing whether specific controller-level failures can be made observable, explainable, locally revisable, and empirically re-tested under controlled conditions.