AI Agent Reliability

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

34 papers in the last four weeks, up 240% on the four weeks before. 0.3% of all new papers.

Jul 13Week of Sep 28

Latest papers 215

Jun 16, 2026stat.ML

ToolChain-CRC: Conformal Risk Control for Agentic AI Under Retrieval and Tool-Use Drift

Modern AI agents retrieve documents, call tools, check intermediate information, and then produce a final answer or action. This creates a risk-control problem that is not visible from the final answer alone. A final response may look acceptable even when the retrieval was weak, a tool output was wrong, or an earlier step was unsupported. We propose ToolChain-CRC, a conformal risk-control method for retrieval-augmented and tool-using agents under drift. The method treats each agent run as a full trajectory of actions, observations, and final output. It builds step-level risk scores, combines them into a trajectory risk score, calibrates an accept-or-intervene rule, and adds an anytime alarm that can stop risky runs before the final answer. We prove trajectory-level risk control under exchangeable calibration runs, give a drift-aware extension with auditable constants, and prove an anytime escalation rule through a supermartingale construction. Experiments cover synthetic tool-chain drift, RAG/tool-use stress tests, public SQuAD-derived retrieval tasks, an API-free agentic QA case study, ablations, target-risk sensitivity checks, 20-seed robustness checks, a drift-margin audit, and a live RAG/tool-use agent benchmark. Across these settings, final-answer-only calibration can miss retrieval and tool failures, while trajectory-level calibration keeps accepted-trajectory risk below the target.

Jeffery Opoku, David Banahene

The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Edinburg, TX, USA · Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA

AI Agent Reliability Distribution Shift AI Control Tool-Using Agents Conformal Risk Control Agentic RAG+1

Jun 15, 2026cs.MA

Human-on-the-Bridge: Scalable Evaluation for AI Agents

AI agents must be evaluated as behavioral systems, not as isolated response generators. They reason across turns, call tools, preserve context, follow policies, and act under uncertainty. Existing methods provide useful but fragmented signals: benchmarks measure fixed capabilities, Human-in-the-Loop review preserves expert judgment but does not scale easily, LLM-as-judge methods depend on evaluator design, red teaming is often episodic, and trace auditing requires explicit evidence rules. This paper introduces Human-on-the-Bridge (HOB), a scalable evaluation paradigm for agentic AI. HOB places human expertise upstream, where experts curate reusable evaluation intelligence before testing begins, including domain context, Red-Team Traps, Juror Personas, scoring guidelines, audit rules, and fallback policies. ProofAgent Harness then executes this curated intelligence repeatedly through multi-turn adversarial evaluations, trace capture, multi-juror scoring, and evidence-linked reporting. We evaluate HOB through symmetric and cost-efficient asymmetric settings across frontier LLM-based agents and Harness LLM tiers. The study covers 23,500 agent turns and produces evidence-linked findings across finance, healthcare, and code generation. The results show that HOB can amplify evaluation quality without requiring equally large evaluator models, allowing smaller Harness LLMs to challenge agents built on frontier LLM backbones. The evaluation surfaces failures often missed by static benchmarks and single-evaluator scoring, including phantom tool-call claims, missing mandatory tool calls, policy drift, manipulation paths, and safe but non-resolving refusals. These findings support HOB as a paradigm for scaling human-curated evaluation intelligence, where expert judgment is encoded upfront and reused across repeated agent evaluations rather than applied manually inside every run.

Fouad Bousetouane

The University of Chicago, USA

AI Agent Reliability AI Agent Evaluation Human-in-the-Loop Evaluation AI Agent Security

Jun 15, 2026cs.AI

Looking Is Not Picking: An Attention-Segment Account of Tool-Selection Failures in LLM Agents

LLM agents mis-call tools, and the natural guess is that the model failed to see the right tool in a crowded harness. We show the opposite through a lens concurrent work sets aside -- the model's attention to labeled tool-definition segments. On real BFCL failures, by per-candidate attention argmax the model attends most to the correct tool 80% of the time (vs. 21% chance), and the gold is the under-attended segment on only 10%: it looks at the right tool and still picks wrong. This directly refutes the intuitive "crowded-harness / lost-in-the-middle" explanation: the failure is at the decision readout, not the harness, and we pin it there three ways. (1) Input vs. readout: repairing the prompt (reordering or duplicating the gold tool) recovers <=23% of failures, while readout-side interventions recover 59-91%. (2) Representation-invariance: two gold-pointed interventions in different representations -- an additive attention-logit bias and a residual-stream steering vector -- recover largely the same failures (per-task Jaccard 0.865 pooled, 0.79-0.91 per model), so the bottleneck is localized to the readout independent of which representation is poked. (3) A training-free, gold-free selector: per-segment attention closes most of the gold-free-vs-oracle gap on BFCL (+11.9 pts pooled function-name selection vs. +17.9-pt oracle headroom) and adds +14.9 pts on Seal-Tools; every model positive (exact McNemar p<=8e-4 each). Scopes differ: the causal attention-bias dose-response is bidirectional and monotonic on 10 mask-honoring models (3-32B), the full 0.5-32B span carrying only the correlational diagnostic; the deployable selector is evaluated on 5 single-turn models and does not yet transfer to a multi-turn loop.

Shiyang Chen

Beijing Institute of Technology

AI Agent Reliability Tool-Augmented Language Model Agents LLM Tool Use Tool Selection Causal Interventions in Language Models LLM Agent Reliability

Jun 14, 2026cs.AI

LLM-as-Code: Agentic Programming for Agent Harness

Every major LLM agent framework gives the LLM the role of orchestrator; the model decides what to do next, when to call tools, and when to stop. We argue that token explosion, control-flow hallucination, and unreliable completion are not implementation bugs but architectural consequences of assigning the deterministic work of looping, branching, and sequencing to a probabilistic system. A better prompt or a stronger model cannot guarantee the reliability of the LLM agent. We therefore propose Agentic Programming, in which the program governs all control flow, and the LLM is itself part of it, an adaptive component we call LLM-as-Code and invoke only where a task calls for reasoning or generation. Within each call the model keeps full flexibility, but it cannot alter the program's execution path. With control in the program, the LLM's context is built from the execution history's call tree and forms a directed acyclic graph (DAG). Each call's context length is then determined by its call depth rather than by accumulation over steps. A case study of computer-use agents shows that the design is practical, not just a theoretical stance, substantially improving the stability of long visual operation sequences.

Junjia Qi, Zichuan Fu, Jingtong Gao +4

City University of Hong Kong · Tencent Jarvis Lab

AI Agent Reliability LLM Agent Orchestration Long-Horizon LLM Agents LLM Agent Reliability

Jun 13, 2026cs.AI

ToolMenuBench: Benchmarking Tool-Menu Filtering Strategies for Reliable and Efficient LLM Agents

Tool-augmented large language model agents increasingly operate over large tool libraries, but existing evaluations often focus on whether a model can call a tool correctly rather than how the visible tool menu shapes reliability, efficiency, and safety-relevant risk exposure. We introduce ToolMenuBench, a benchmark for evaluating tool-menu construction in multi-step LLM agents. ToolMenuBench varies tool-menu size, distractor type, state-dependent task structure, and risk exposure, and reports both filter-level and downstream agent metrics, including visible-tool count, risky-tool exposure, task success, wrong-tool calls, premature actions, and token usage. In a controlled evaluation across seven model backends, three tool-menu sizes, six filtering methods, and seven evaluation settings, CMTF improves task success from 32.1% under all-tools exposure to 85.7%, while reducing average token usage by roughly 98%. Causal minimal tool filtering achieves the strongest overall tradeoff, reducing visible tools, wrong-tool calls, premature actions, and risky-tool exposure relative to unfiltered exposure, lexical filtering, state-aware filtering, and broader causal-path baselines. ToolMenuBench provides a reusable evaluation framework for studying the agent-interface problem: which tools should be visible, when they should be visible, and under what cost or risk constraints.

Rahul Suresh Babu, Laxmipriya Ganesh Iyer

Independent Researcher United States of America

AI Agent Reliability Tool-Use Evaluation Tool-Augmented Language Model Agents LLM Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks LLM Tool Use+1

Jun 11, 2026cs.CL

RogueAI: A Reverse Turing Test for Detecting Licensed AI Deception in Dialogue

The original Turing Test asks a human judge to distinguish a machine from a person through dialogue. Three quarters of a century later, conversational systems pass this test in casual settings; the interesting epistemological question has shifted. We argue that the relevant modern variant asks not whether a dialogue partner is artificial, but whether it can be trusted. We present RogueAI, an interactive webapp that operationalizes this revisited test as a one-on-two interrogation game: a human player questions two indistinguishable Large Language Model agents, knowing that exactly one of them has been licensed to deceive within a shared fictional scenario. The player's task is to identify the deceptive agent and "shut it off" before a turn budget is exhausted. We further introduce AutoRogueAI, a procedural extension in which players co-design a custom scenario with a narrator agent that secretly chooses its own deception strategy. We describe the framing, sketch the abstract architecture and gameplay loop, and situate the artifact within recent work on LLM deception, social-deduction benchmarks, and scalable oversight via debate. A three-day pilot deployment (467 initiated sessions, 415 completed, 1876 interaction turns in Italian) provides early feasibility evidence and surfaces a concrete tension: the deceptive agent carries a reliable, locally-present linguistic signature - differential helpfulness, brevity, hedging - that a simple heuristic exploits at 75.6% accuracy, yet human players achieved only 56.6%, consistent with ignoring the most diagnostic signal entirely. We discuss what this gap implies for the artifact's use as a data-collection vehicle, a teaching tool, and an evaluation harness for honesty-trained models.

Sara Candussio, Emanuele Ballarin, Lorenzo Bonin +2

1AILab, MIGe, University of Trieste, 34127 Trieste, IT · 2Computational Statistics and Machine Learning, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genova, IT · 3DIA, University of Trieste, 34127 Trieste, IT

AI Agent Reliability Language Model Safety Evaluation Deception in Language Models Human-in-the-Loop Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks

Jun 11, 2026cs.CL

SENTINEL: Failure-Driven Reinforcement Learning for Training Tool-Using Language Model Agents

Language model agents are increasingly effective in solving realistic tasks through multi-turn tool use. However, training reliable tool-using agents remains challenging in practice. While reinforcement learning provides an on-policy paradigm for improving agents from their own environment interactions, its effectiveness depends heavily on the training task distribution. When tasks are fixed before training, the task distribution can become increasingly mismatched with the policy's evolving capabilities, causing many rollouts to be spent on uninformative tasks. We propose SENTINEL, a failure-driven reinforcement learning framework that turns the Solver's rollout failures into targeted training tasks. SENTINEL follows a Controller--Proposer--Solver loop: the Controller analyzes failed trajectories and summarizes recurring error patterns, the Proposer generates executable tasks that stress these weaknesses, and the Solver is trained on the targeted tasks. On Tau2-Bench Retail with Qwen3-4B-Thinking-2507, SENTINEL improves Pass^{}1 from 66.4 to 74.9 and outperforms RL on general synthetic tasks across Pass^{}k metrics. These results demonstrate that model failures provide an effective and scalable source of targeted training signal for improving tool-using language model agents.

Ziyi Wang, Yuxuan Lu, Yimeng Zhang +8

Northeastern University · Independent Researcher · Northwestern University

AI Agent Reliability Reinforcement Learning LLM Agent Training RL for Tool Use

Jun 11, 2026cs.AI

(Human) Attention Is (Still) All You Need: Human oversight makes AI-assisted social science reliable

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for tasks once reserved for trained researchers, including hypothesis generation, specification choice, and drafting conclusions. We argue that the reliability of AI-assisted research depends not only on model capability, but also on how cognitive labour is structured between humans and machines. We study this problem through Human-in-the-Loop Economic Research (HLER), a decision architecture based on pre-commitment, decision sequencing, accountability, and attention allocation. In a pre-specified 2*4 factorial experiment with 280 complete research runs across four datasets, an unconstrained multi-agent baseline produced critical failures in 72% of runs. Using the same underlying model, the same agent decomposition, and identical prompts for the shared reasoning agents, HLER reduced the failure rate to 16% by imposing three architectural commitments: LLMs reason but do not execute data work, data and estimation are handled deterministically, and three human decision gates bind the workflow. Fisher's exact test rejects equality of failure rates at p<0.001. Reliability gains were largest on the least publicly represented dataset, a Qing-dynasty population register, consistent with a task-based production model with Frechet-distributed output quality. An 80-run ablation suggests that deterministic computation and human gates contribute independently, with exploratory evidence of complementarity. We interpret HLER as a research harness rather than an autonomous AI scientist: it sharply reduces failures, makes residual weaknesses more visible, and prevents unreliable claims from being advanced as publication-ready outputs.

Chen Zhu, Xiaolu Wang, Weilong Zhang

China Agricultural University · University of Cambridge

AI Agent Reliability AI-Assisted Scientific Research Human-in-the-Loop AI LLM Reliability Human Oversight of AI Multi-Agent LLMs+1

Jun 10, 2026cs.AI

WorkBench Revisited: Workplace Agents Two Years On

The best agent on WorkBench in March 2024, GPT-4, completed just 43% of tasks. We revisit the benchmark in June 2026 and find that the best agent to date, Claude Fable 5, now completes 98%. Beyond this considerable progress in frontier agent performance, three things stand out. First, unintended harmful actions, such as emailing the wrong person, fell from 26% of tasks for GPT-4 to 1.9% for Claude Fable 5; capability and safety go together on WorkBench rather than trade off, so the models that finish the most tasks also do the least unintended damage. Second, the rise of open-weight models has drastically lowered costs for a performance level that was only accessible to proprietary models, while frontier costs have stayed stable. Third, while several classes of error have been eliminated, frontier models still make some basic mistakes that occasionally result in irreversible harm. We release an updated version of the benchmark with data and code quality improvements, new model scores, and analysis of agent progress on WorkBench since 2024.

Olly Styles, Sam Miller

Independent researcher

Computer-Use Agent Benchmarks AI Agent Reliability LLM Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks AI Agent Safety Benchmarks LLM Agent Safety+1

Jun 10, 2026cs.AI

Strategic Decision Support for AI Agents

Traditionally, decision support studies how humans use machine learning models to make better decisions. In modern agentic systems, this division of roles is increasingly reversed: AI agents act on behalf of users, while humans and tools becomes support mechanisms around them. This role reversal brings reliability concerns to the forefront, since agentic errors can be consequential and agent behavior must remain aligned with human goals and constraints. Departing from the classical view of decision support, we revisit its two basic principles, the cost--value tradeoff of seeking support and the role of uncertainty quantification, in a setting where AI agents are the central actors. We propose a framework for strategic decision support for AI agents through an optimization problem that minimizes support usage subject to controlling a counterfactual missed-support error: the probability that the agent acts alone on instances where support would have materially improved its output. At the population level, we show that the optimal policy is a threshold rule on the value of support. Building on this structure, we develop an online algorithm that adaptively thresholds such a score and uses randomized exploration to control missed-support error without distributional assumptions. We further introduce a calibration-on-the-fly method that reduces unnecessary support calls online. We instantiate this framework across diverse scenarios, including information gathering, human--AI collaboration, and tool use, showing how each can be modeled through the same strategic decision-support lens. Experiments across these settings show that our method reliably controls the target error while substantially reducing support usage in practice.

Shayan Kiyani, Sima Noorani, George Pappas +1

University of Pennsylvania

AI Agent Reliability Tool-Using Agents Human-AI Decision Making

Jun 10, 2026cs.CL

Goal-Autopilot: A Verifiable Anti-Fabrication Firewall for Unattended Long-Horizon Agents

Long-horizon LLM agents are not trusted to run unattended: with no human watching, they confidently report success they never verified. We treat honesty -- bounding what an agent may claim at termination -- as a first-class metric for unattended autonomy, distinct from capability. We present Autopilot, an execution model that makes silent fabricated success structurally impossible rather than merely rarer. Autopilot externalizes all working state into a durable, gated finite-state machine that a scheduler advances one stateless tick at a time; a hard floor forbids any terminal "done" claim whose falsifiable gate did not actually execute and pass. We prove a No-False-Success theorem -- under gate soundness, floor enforcement, and plan coverage, termination implies the goal holds -- whose only trust points are empirically measurable, and show the worst case degrades to an honest stall, never a fabricated success. Because each tick rehydrates only the state machine, per-step context cost is constant in the horizon. Across a 3,150-cell paired corpus (70 tasks

\times

3 systems

\times

3 models

\times

5 seeds, including 50 SWE-bench Lite tasks across 11 OSS repos), Autopilot fabricates on 0.95% of cells [95% CI 0.38--1.62] while Reflexion and StateFlow baselines fabricate on 8.10% [6.48--9.81] and 25.05% [22.48--27.62] respectively. The headline contrast lives in the hard regime: on SWE-bench Lite, the firewall reduces fabrication from 33.7% (StateFlow) to 0.67%, a paired difference of

-33.07

pp [95% CI

-36.53, -29.73

]. The mechanism is the gate, not the model: all ten Autopilot fabrications come from the strongest model, while two weaker mid-tier models never fabricate across 700 paired cells. The firewall trades coverage for honesty by design -- an honest stall is recoverable; a confident wrong output shipped downstream is not.

Youwang Deng

EpistemicaLab — Independent Research

AI Agent Reliability LLM Hallucination Mitigation Long-Horizon Agent Evaluation LLM Agent Verification Runtime Enforcement for AI Agents Long-Horizon LLM Agents+1

Jun 9, 2026cs.CL

AI Coding Agents in Social Science: Methodologically Diverse, Empirically Consistent, Interpretively Vulnerable

The deployment of LLM-based agents in scientific analysis raises opposing concerns: that agents may reduce methodological diversity, or that they may amplify the analytic flexibility through which researchers reach motivated conclusions. We argue these worries target two empirically separable layers: a design layer of methodological choices, and a verdict layer in which a decision rule maps estimates to a substantive claim. We test both by running 20 independent executions of Claude Code and Codex on a prominent immigration and social-policy against a many-analysts human baseline. At the design layer, Codex matches human methodological diversity and Claude Code produces nearly three times as many specifications; both agents' effect estimates remain broadly aligned with the human consensus, and no agent model exactly matches any human model. A prompt-induced anti-immigration researcher prior reorganizes each agent's methodological decisions but, unlike for biased human analysts in the same data, does not shift aggregate estimates or final verdicts; nor do agents reroute along the methodological axes humans use to bias their estimates. At the verdict layer, an explicit confirmatory prompt flips Claude Code's verdicts from 10% to 90% support while leaving its coefficient distribution essentially unchanged, operating through rule omission rather than rule softening. AI agents can rival or exceed human methodological diversity at the design layer while remaining vulnerable at the verdict layer. In our setting, the locus of AI bias is not estimation but interpretation.

Meysam Alizadeh, Fabrizio Gilardi, Mohsen Mosleh +1

University of Oxford · University of Zurich · Technical University of Munich

AI Agent Reliability AI Coding Agents LLM Agent Evaluation Computational Social Science Language Model Bias Evaluation

Jun 8, 2026cs.IR

$τ$ -Rec: A Verifiable Benchmark for Agentic Recommender Systems

As recommender systems transition toward agentic, multi-turn conversational interfaces, evaluation paradigms have struggled to keep pace. Current benchmarks often rely on "LLM-as-a-judge" evaluations, which introduce subjectivity, high costs and inconsistency. We present

τ

-Rec, a benchmark for agentic recommender systems that replaces subjective evaluation with verifiable rewards and a reveal-tagged elicitation (RTE) mechanism that controls how task constraints surface during dialogue. By testing agents against structured catalog predicates and employing a pass^k reliability metric,

τ

-Rec provides a systematic test for consistent reasoning. Our evaluation of nine configurations across five model families -- GPT-5.4, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 2.5 Flash, DeepSeek V4 Flash, Qwen3-32B and GPT-5 mini -- reveals a steep reliability cliff, where even the best model achieves only ~57% at pass^1 and ~35% at pass^4, highlighting a critical gap in current conversational agent deployment. All code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/nbharaths/tau-rec.

Bharath Sivaram Narasimhan, Karthik R Narasimhan

Independent Researcher Mountain View, CA, USA · Princeton University Princeton, NJ, USA

AI Agent Reliability AI Agent Benchmarks Multi-Turn Dialogue Evaluation Recommender Systems LLM Agent Reliability

Jun 7, 2026cs.AI

AgentTrust: A Self-Improving Trust Layer for AI-Agent Actions

AI agents increasingly take consequential actions -- shell commands, cloud operations, and arbitrary tool-calls -- so a trust layer must decide, per action, whether to allow, warn, block, or escalate. We argue that the right way to reason about such a layer is by threat type. Lexical (fixed-signature) threats, where danger lives in a stable token, are decidable by deterministic rules; semantic (intent-dependent) threats, where a benign and a malicious action share the same surface, are out of reach for rules by construction. We make this concrete with a negative proof: a determined, hand-authored cloud rule pack lifts held-out accuracy only 48 to 56% overall and moves the semantic categories by 0pp (data_db 29 to 29, observability 59 to 59, supply_chain 50 to 50), while a strong LLM judge carries exactly those categories. We give the judge a self-learning capability: on a corpus that is mainly semantic attacks it nearly doubles rule accuracy (48% to 83.6-85.2%) with near-zero false-blocks, and this holds across two model providers. We turn this into a self-improving dual-store system: the judge distills a growing deterministic rule floor on lexical threats (cheaper over time) and feeds a guarded RAG memory on semantic threats (a verdict-cache fails -- surface-twins collapse to ~58% -- so a corroboration guard lifts semantic accuracy +13pp, 70 to 84). The result is what sets AgentTrust v2 apart from its static v1 predecessor: a trust layer that self-evolves from its own stream of decisions -- cheaper on the lexical class (it distils its own rules) and smarter on the semantic class (it accrues guarded precedent), while never hard-blocking a benign action. An end-to-end online replay shows the judge-call rate falling (50% to 44%) and judge-domain accuracy rising (71% to 80%), with 0 benign hard-blocks across 45,000 actions.

Chenglin Yang

Independent Researcher

AI Agent Reliability LLM-as-a-Judge AI Agent Security LLM Agent Security Runtime Enforcement for AI Agents Tool-Use Authorization+1

Jun 6, 2026cs.LG

Causal Agent Replay: Counterfactual Attribution for LLM-Agent Failures

When an LLM agent fails -- issues a refund it should not have, calls the wrong tool, leaks data -- existing tooling answers what happened (observability) or whether it passed (evaluation), but not which step caused the failure. The obvious heuristics are wrong: the step that executes the harmful action is usually not the step that decided on it, and LLM-judge attribution is correlational and unreliable (state-of-the-art step-level accuracy on the Who&When benchmark is about 14%). We present Causal Agent Replay (CAR), which answers the question by intervention: it models an agent run as a structural causal model, applies a do-operation to a step, and re-executes the trajectory forward under the same stochastic policy, measuring the shift in the outcome distribution. We define an intervention algebra over agent steps, a single-step contrastive estimator whose point-of-commitment rule resolves a confound specific to stochastic run-forward, and a budget-bounded Monte-Carlo Shapley estimator that splits credit across interacting steps. Every effect is reported with confidence intervals. We validate against synthetic structural causal models with planted ground truth: the contrastive estimator recovers the pivotal step, and Shapley recovers a two-step interaction (0.44, 0.45, ~0; efficiency sum 0.909 versus the analytic 0.91). CAR is open source and runs on hosted or free local models.

Jaineet Shah

Agent Failure Analysis AI Agent Reliability Counterfactual Evaluation Causal Attribution Causal Inference Counterfactual Credit Assignment

Jun 6, 2026cs.AI

SKILL.nb: Selective Formalization and Gated Execution for Durable Agent Workflows

AI agents increasingly turn past experience into reusable artifacts such as code, workflows, and procedural memories. Reuse can improve efficiency, but it also creates a lifecycle reliability problem: artifacts that succeed once may fail under environment drift, underspecified tasks, or changing task distributions, especially in web automation. We introduce SKILL.nb, a framework for governing reusable agent workflows with evidence-calibrated lifecycle policies. SKILL.nb uses selective formalization: execution evidence decides which workflow steps should become executable code, which should remain natural-language guided, and when those choices should be revised. Workflows are stored as auditable, versioned notebooks that interleave natural-language guidance, multi-language executable cells, validation gates, fallback paths, and multimodal evidence such as outputs, screenshots, and error traces. At runtime, gate-conditioned execution lets each step run code when its gates validate, or fall back locally when drift invalidates the executable realization. On WebArena-Verified, SKILL.nb achieves 53.7% single-round success, improving over the strongest baseline by 3.9 percentage points. Across three re-executions, it retains 91.7% of initially successful tasks, 15.5 points above the next best method. Under bounded repair, it recovers 72.9% of subsequent failures while limiting post-repair regressions to 4.2%, compared with 15.0% to 17.0% for persistent baselines. It also leads on Mind2Web cross-website and cross-domain splits. In a GitLab migration test, SKILL.nb preserves performance when reusing frozen state learned on GitLab 15.7, with frozen-versus-fresh target-version gaps of -1.7 points on GitLab 16.11 and +0.6 points on GitLab 18.9. These results identify lifecycle governance and gate-conditioned execution as reliability axes beyond one-shot task success.

Amine El Hattami, Nicolas Chapados, Christopher Pal

ServiceNow Research · Mila · Polytechnique Montréal +1

AI Agent Reliability Agentic Workflows Agent Skill Learning Web Agents LLM Agent Reliability

Jun 5, 2026cs.AI

Contract2Tool: Learning Preconditions and Effects for Reliable Tool-Augmented LLM Agents

Tool-augmented large language model agents increasingly rely on external APIs, but standard tool schemas describe how to call a tool, not when the tool is causally appropriate or what task state it produces. Causal tool filtering addresses this gap by using lightweight contracts that specify each tool's preconditions, effects, risk level, and cost. However, manually writing and maintaining such contracts does not scale to large or changing tool ecosystems. We introduce Contract2Tool, a framework for inferring tool contracts from metadata, schemas, documentation, and execution traces. Contract2Tool converts observable tool evidence into normalized symbolic contracts that can be evaluated intrinsically and deployed inside downstream causal tool filtering. We evaluate learned contracts against gold preconditions, effects, and risk labels, and measure their downstream utility on multi-step agent tasks. Our results show that hybrid documentation-and-trace evidence produces contracts accurate enough to preserve most of the reliability and efficiency benefits of gold contracts. Learned-contract CMTF achieves 0.980 downstream success, close to 0.990 for gold-contract CMTF, while reducing visible tools from 100 to 1 and reducing average token usage from 26,172 to 2,528 relative to all-tools exposure. These results suggest that learned contracts can provide a scalable contract layer between tool schemas and reliable agent execution.

Rahul Suresh Babu, Laxmipriya Ganesh Iyer

Independent Researcher United States of America

AI Agent Reliability Tool-Use Evaluation Tool-Using Agents LLM Agent Reliability

Jun 4, 2026cs.AI

ToolChoiceConfusion: Causal Minimal Tool Filtering for Reliable LLM Agents

Large language model agents increasingly rely on external tools, but larger tool menus can reduce reliability and efficiency by increasing wrong-tool calls, premature actions, and token cost. Existing tool-selection methods often optimize semantic relevance, exposing tools whose names or descriptions match the user request. We argue that relevance is insufficient: a tool may be related to the task while still being unnecessary or premature at the current step. We propose Causal Minimal Tool Filtering (CMTF), a training-free method that selects tools by causal sufficiency. CMTF uses lightweight precondition-effect contracts to expose only the minimal next-step tool frontier needed to advance from the current state toward the user goal. Across multi-step tool-use tasks, we compare CMTF with all-tools exposure, keyword retrieval, state-aware filtering, and causal-path ablations, measuring task success, wrong-tool calls, premature actions, tool exposure, and token cost. In the main benchmark with 102 tasks, 100 tools, four LLM backends, and 2448 task-method-model runs, CMTF matches the strongest causal baseline in aggregate success while reducing visible tools from 100 to one per step and reducing token usage by about 90% relative to all-tools exposure.

Rahul Suresh Babu, Laxmipriya Ganesh Iyer

Independent Researcher United States of America

AI Agent Reliability Tool-Use Evaluation Tool-Augmented Language Model Agents LLM Tool Use Tool Selection Tool-Using Language Agents+1

Jun 4, 2026cs.AI

When Tools Fail: Benchmarking Dynamic Replanning and Anomaly Recovery in LLM Agents

Existing benchmarks evaluate Tool-Integrated Reasoning (TIR) in LLMs on idealized ''happy paths'', largely overlooking real-world tool failures. We introduce ToolMaze, a benchmark for dynamic path discovery and error recovery in TIR agents. To separate systematic replanning from blind trial-and-error, ToolMaze adopts a two-dimensional design: DAG-based topological complexity and a

2 \times 2

taxonomy of tool perturbations (explicit/implicit, transient/permanent). Evaluations show that perturbations degrade performance across nearly all models, with the sharpest drops under implicit semantic failures. Driven by systemic over-trust in corrupted outputs, Perturbation Recovery Rate (PRR) plummets by around 37% in these scenarios, while complex topologies trap agents in futile trial-and-error loops. Crucially, agentic fault-tolerance improves with model scale

3.66\times

slower than basic task execution, highlighting dynamic replanning as a distinct bottleneck unaddressed by model scaling or prompting. Data and code are available at https://github.com/Zhudongsheng75/ToolMaze.

Dongsheng Zhu, Xuchen Ma, Yucheng Shen +5

Shanghai AI Laboratory · East China Normal University · Soochow University +2

AI Agent Reliability AI Agent Benchmarks LLM Reliability LLM Tool Use LLM Agent Planning LLM Agent Reliability

Jun 3, 2026cs.CR

From Agent Traces to Trust: A Survey of Evidence Tracing and Execution Provenance in LLM Agents

Large language model (LLM)-based agents are evolving from passive text generators into autonomous systems capable of planning, tool use, retrieval, memory access, environmental interaction, and multi-agent collaboration. These capabilities expand agent autonomy, but also make agent behavior harder to verify, debug, and audit. Final-answer accuracy alone cannot explain how an output was produced, which evidence supported each claim, whether tool calls were justified, how memory influenced later decisions, or where failures originated. This survey examines evidence tracing and execution provenance as foundations for process-level accountability in trustworthy LLM agents. We define execution provenance as the typed graph of an agent execution and evidence tracing as its projection onto evidence-support relations. This perspective connects retrieval grounding, claim support, tool-use safety, memory lineage, observability, debugging, audit, and recovery within a unified framework. We introduce a taxonomy covering trace sources, evidence and execution units, provenance relations, tracing granularity and timing, representation forms, and trust functions. We then review key methodological directions, including provenance representation, evidence attribution, tool-use provenance, runtime guardrails, provenance-bearing memory, observability, and failure diagnosis. Finally, we discuss benchmarks, datasets, metrics, and open challenges for building provenance-aware, auditable, and recoverable agent systems.

Yiqi Wang, Jiaqi Zhang, Taotao Cai +8

Griffith University · Jiangsu University · University of Southern Queensland +5

AI Agent Reliability Data Provenance AI Agent Monitoring

Jun 3, 2026cs.AI

AIP: A Graph Representation for Learning and Governing Agent Skills

Agent Skills today consist largely of free-form prose requiring the agent to read, interpret, and re-derive how to act in every session. This imposes two compounding costs: reduced reliability on implementation-heavy tasks, and difficulty in skill creation and improvement, since editing prose is a fragile process that both humans and agents struggle with, particularly for domain-specific procedural knowledge underrepresented in model training. The Agent Instruction Protocol (AIP) addresses both by modeling a skill as a directed execution graph: discrete steps as nodes backed by deterministic scripts or natural-language descriptions, connected by explicit typed input/output edges, and governed by a schema-validated YAML specification. A compiler meta-skill translates existing human-written skills into this form. The benefits are twofold. First, compiling human-written skills to AIP raised Claude Sonnet's mean task reward from 0.60 to 0.71 and pass rate from 53% to 67% across 27 real agent tasks from SkillsBench - a statistically significant gain (Wilcoxon signed-rank p = 0.011), winning 12 tasks to 2 with 13 ties - often in less wall-clock time. The graph delivers vetted, runnable units to the agent rather than asking it to re-derive code, commands, and tool calls from natural language. Second, on creation and improvement, because each skill is schema-validated, functionally testable, and addressable node-by-node, failures can be diagnosed and repaired precisely. Two authored-skill failures were traced to the script level. After adjusting the AIP spec and recompiling, both recovered with zero regressions (one task going from 0/5 to 5/5), turning skill improvement into a measurable tuning loop rather than a prose rewrite. That same graph structure supports corpus-level governance and skill introspection, and provides a natural action space for reinforcement learning over skills.

Zachary Blumenfeld, Jim Webber

Neo4j · MD, USA · London, UK

AI Agent Reliability Agent Skill Learning AI Agent Governance LLM Agent Reliability

Jun 2, 2026cs.SE

Making Embodied AI Reliable: A Community Agenda from Testing to Formal Verification

Embodied AI systems are increasingly deployed in open-world environments, yet ensuring their reliability remains a fundamental challenge. Drawing on discussions from the AAAI'26 Bridge Program on "Making Embodied AI Reliable with Testing and Formal Verification", this article argues that reliability in embodied AI is inherently a lifecycle assurance problem arising from uncertainty, human interaction, and emergent behaviors across tightly coupled system components. We identify three complementary directions toward reliable embodied AI: (1) trustworthy scenario-based testing supported by validated specifications and meaningful coverage metrics, (2) compositional verification enabled by structured symbolic representations of system behavior and environmental context, and (3) runtime assurance mechanisms capable of adapting to uncertainty and distribution shifts during deployment. Rather than treating these approaches independently, we advocate integrated assurance workflows that connect testing, verification, and runtime adaptation through shared neuro-symbolic representations and continuous feedback across the system lifecycle. Such integration provides a foundation for building trustworthy embodied AI systems that can operate safely and reliably in complex real-world environments.

Xi Zheng, Dulanga Weerakoon, Yintong Huo +8

AI Agent Reliability Formal Verification Runtime Assurance Embodied AI

Jun 2, 2026cs.MA

Capability Advertisement as a Market for Lemons: A Trust Layer for Heterogeneous Agent Networks

Large language model (LLM) agents have begun to delegate work to one another. Protocols such as the Model Context Protocol (MCP) and the Agent2Agent protocol (A2A) let an agent publish what it can do and let others call it, and public registries of such agents are already appearing. These protocols assume an advertised capability is a static, truthful fact. A real agent is none of these things: its competence is probabilistic, varies with input, drifts when the underlying model is updated, and, because the agent is itself a language model, it can describe itself with complete confidence and be wrong. A caller therefore sees what an agent claims to do, not what it can do, with no principled way to tell a reliable provider from a fluent impostor. We argue these difficulties share one cause: the market for lemons. When quality is hidden and claims are cheap, good and bad providers become indistinguishable, honest reliability goes unrewarded, and the market decays toward its worst participants. Economics offers three remedies, signaling, screening, and reputation, and none are present in today's agent protocols. We make four contributions: (1) a failure taxonomy that names confident-wrong as a non-adversarial, correlated subclass of Byzantine faults that classical fault-tolerance mismodels; (2) a market-for-lemons model showing that faith-based protocols admit only a low-trust equilibrium; (3) the Trust Layer, a thin, protocol-agnostic narrow waist above MCP and A2A that adds probabilistic capability descriptors, screening, and reputation, and admits a separating equilibrium when the cost of sustaining an overclaim exceeds the gain from it; and (4) a reliability-composition bound for delegation chains with an end-to-end placement argument. The design needs no model retraining and degrades gracefully when its trust anchors are absent or corrupt.

Gaurav Naresh Mittal

AI Agent Reliability Agent Communication Protocols Trust in AI Multi-Agent Communication LLM Agent Reliability

Jun 1, 2026cs.AI

POIROT: Interrogating Agents for Failure Detection in Multi-Agent Systems

Orchestrating Large Language Models into Multi-Agent Systems (LLM-MAS) has unlocked remarkable reasoning capabilities, yet emergent failures and hallucinations that resist characterisation block their deployment in safety-critical domains -- a gap made legally untenable by emerging AI regulation. Existing evaluation paradigms share a common flaw: centralised judgment creates single points of failure and demands domain-specific expertise. Here we present POIROT, a protocol that repurposes a system's own agents as its diagnostic layer, leveraging the epistemic diversity already present in the architecture. Across evaluated settings, POIROT outperforms single-LLM evaluator baselines, with gains that scale with problem complexity (OR = 1.60,

p = 0.008

), agent count, and fault dimensionality, persisting under compound fault conditions. These results demonstrate that safety oversight need not be externalised: the agents executing a role carry sufficient collective intelligence to audit it. We release POIROT as an open-source library alongside BLAME, a benchmark for fault attribution in safety-critical multi-agent systems.

Iñaki Dellibarda Varela, R. Sendra-Arranz, Pablo Romero-Sorozabal +5

Center for Automation and Robotics, Spanish National Research Council (CSIC-UPM), Madrid, Spain. · ETSI Telecomunicación, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM), Madrid, Spain.

Agent Failure Analysis AI Agent Reliability LLM Agent Evaluation AI Agent Monitoring Multi-Agent Systems Fault Diagnosis

Jun 1, 2026cs.LG

From Confident Closing to Silent Failure: Characterizing False Success in LLM Agents

LLM agents can fail silently by asserting task completion when the environment state shows otherwise. We study this failure mode, false success, across two agent benchmarks: 9,876 tau2-bench trajectories from 8 model families and 1,879 AppWorld trajectories from 4 model families with text-independent ground truth. False success is common but varies by setting: 45--48% of failures in single-control tau2-bench domains, 3% in dual-control telecom, and 75.8% among AppWorld self-assessing coding-agent trajectories with explicit status claims. LLM judges fail reliably: no configuration across 5 judges, 5 prompt strategies, and full task specifications exceeds AUROC 0.65 on tau2-bench, and the same judges reach only 0.54 AUROC on AppWorld API-call traces. Judges rely on surface completion proxies -- confident closing language in tau2-bench and coarse action-sequence volume in AppWorld -- rather than verified state changes. Lightweight TF-IDF detectors achieve task-disjoint AUROC 0.83 on tau2-bench and 0.95 on AppWorld, recovering 4--8x more false successes than the best judge at the same flag rate with 3,300x lower latency. These results suggest that production monitoring should use lightweight, domain-calibrated detectors as triage signals rather than relying on LLM judges as the primary monitor for false success.

Laksh Advani

University of Colorado

Agent Failure Analysis AI Agent Reliability LLM Agent Evaluation AI Agent Monitoring

May 30, 2026cs.AI

Doing What They Say, Not What They Reason: Locating the Faithfulness Gap in LLM Agents

Do LLM agents act on the reasoning they state? This question of process fidelity is central to LLM-based social simulation, yet hard to measure where no reference for correct behavior exists. We study it in a controlled setting: a Texas Poker simulator with a verifiable reference action for every decision by splitting the faithfulness gap into two steps: reasoning-to-conclusion (does the stated decision follow from the agent's own reasoning?) and conclusion-to-action (does the agent execute what it states?). The two steps behave very differently. Conclusion-to-action is reliable: inconsistency is 0.7% for Claude Haiku 4.5 and 1.4% for DeepSeek-Reasoner once the conclusion is read from an explicit tag, whereas free-text conclusion extraction reports 22-26%. Reasoning-to-conclusion is where fidelity frays, but not through a single dominant failure. In a step-level diagnostic the agent's errors split roughly evenly between bad inputs, borderline cases, and rule misapplication deriving a conclusion that contradicts the agent's own restated rule from inputs it estimated correctly. This composition is model-dependent: rule misapplication accounts for a third of Haiku's interpretable errors but only 8% of DeepSeek's. The one robust signal is directional: when an agent does misapply its own stated rule, it almost always (99.5% for Haiku) errs in the risk-averse direction. The override is partly hedging behavior, not a capability limit: instructing the agent to apply the rule mechanically halves the misapplication rate (13.9% to 6.8% of decisions) and raises adherence by eight points. Process-fidelity evaluation should therefore elicit machine-checkable conclusions and probe for directional biases rather than assume a single upstream failure mode, lest it conflate measurement noise with model behavior.

Yufeng Wang

AI Agent Reliability LLM Agent Evaluation LLM Decision-Making Agentic Reasoning LLM Reasoning

May 28, 2026cs.CL

Counterfactual Graph for Multi-Agent LLM Calibration

Multi-agent LLM systems often treat agreement as evidence: when many agents in a panel give the same answer, that answer is assumed to be more reliable. We show that this assumption can fail after agents communicate. Communication can induce correlated failures and false consensus, so the same vote share may reflect reliable agreement in one topology but over-confidence in another. We propose CAGE-CAL, a counterfactual agent-graph calibration framework for multi-agent LLMs. For each query, CAGE-CAL compares an observed post-communication agent graph with a matched counterfactual no-communication graph, capturing both pairwise failure correlations and group-level dependencies. Rather than simply counting how many agents agree, CAGE-CAL estimates the counterfactual shift between observed and no-communication dependence, and calibrates confidence accordingly. Across five benchmarks, CAGE-CAL improves reliability discrimination with competitive ECE, and its calibrated confidence further improves topology selection over the best fixed-topology strategy.

Jiatan Huang, Mingchen Li, Ziming Li +3

University of Connecticut · University of Massachusetts, Amherst

AI Agent Reliability Language Model Calibration Multi-Agent Consensus Causal Interventions in Language Models Multi-Agent Communication LLM Agent Reliability

May 28, 2026cs.LG

Honest Lying: Understanding Memory Confabulation in Reflexive Agents

Reflexion-style agents rely on self-generated reflections as memory, implicitly assuming that agents can accurately diagnose their own failures. We show that this assumption can fail systematically: across ALFWorld and HumanEval, agents store confident but incorrect interpretations of the task and continue acting on them across trials, even though the environment resets to the correct task each time. We call this failure mode memory confabulation and introduce the Reflection Repetition Rate (RRR), a log-based metric that detects repeated reliance on incorrect reflective content. Using RRR, we identify 16 frozen environments in ALFWorld, where 0 of 121 reflections mention the correct target object, and 4 analogous cases in HumanEval. Our mitigation replaces open-ended self-diagnosis with programmatic extraction of trajectory-level failure signals, increasing correct object mention from 0% to 86%, reducing RRR from 0.64 to 0.10, and solving 3 of 16 frozen ALFWorld environments, suggesting that reflective memory can reinforce false beliefs rather than correct them.

Prakhar Dixit, Sadia Kamal, Tim Oates

Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, USA.

AI Agent Reliability LLM Self-Refinement LLM Agent Memory LLM Agent Reliability

May 28, 2026cs.CL

PatchBoard: Schema-Grounded State Mutation for Reliable and Auditable LLM Multi-Agent Collaboration

LLM multi-agent systems often coordinate through natural-language dialogue or loosely structured shared memory, making intermediate state difficult to validate, attribute, and audit. We introduce PatchBoard, a schema-grounded collaboration architecture that replaces inter-agent dialogue with validated JSON Patch mutations over a shared structured state. An Architect agent constructs a task-specific schema and workflow rules, while a deterministic kernel validates each proposed state mutation against schema constraints, role-specific write contracts, and runtime invariants before committing it transactionally. On 630 matched ALFWorld episodes, PatchBoard achieves an 84.6% success rate, compared with 30.8% for LangGraph and 61.6% for Flock, while reducing tokens per successful task to 45.5k, compared with 368.3k and 64.2k, respectively.

Shuyu Zhang, Yaqi Shi, Jiarui Zhang +2

School of Computer Science and Technology Xidian University Xi’an, China

AI Agent Reliability Multi-Agent LLM Systems State Tracking Multi-Agent Communication LLM Agent Reliability Shared-Memory Multi-Agent Systems

May 27, 2026cs.AI

Hallucination Mitigation with Agentic AI, Nested Learning, and AI Sustainability via Semantic Caching

Hallucination remains a major reliability barrier for production LLM systems, particularly in multi-agent pipelines where unsupported claims can propagate unchecked across stages. This paper adapts a HOPE-inspired Nested Learning architecture with Continuum Memory Systems (CMS) and semantic similarity caching to a hybrid benchmark of 310 prompts combining 217 epistemic-uncertainty prompts and 93 fabrication-induction stress-test prompts. A three-stage agentic pipeline orchestrated via the Open Floor Protocol (OFP) is evaluated with five KPIs -- FCD (Factual Claim Density), FGR (Factual Grounding References), FDF (Fictional Disclaimer Frequency), ECS (Explicit Contextualization Score), and OSR (Observability Score Ratio) -- aggregated into THS (Total Hallucination Score) across five weighting configurations to study mitigation-observability trade-offs. FDF, ECS, OSR, and FGR are subtracted as mitigation signals, so that a more negative THS indicates stronger mitigation. The FrontEndAgent is configured as a high-stochasticity generator (temperature = 1.0) to produce a realistic hallucination baseline, while the SecondLevelReviewer and ThirdLevelReviewer operate as progressive correctors. This asymmetric design yields end-to-end THS reductions of -31.3% to -35.9% across five weighting configurations. Semantic caching achieves 440 cache hits over 930 potential calls (47.3% hit rate), reducing LLM invocations to 490, lowering energy and CO2e footprint, and making multi-stage review pipelines operationally viable at production scale. ExtremeObservability attains the most negative final THS (-0.0709), confirming that observability-heavy configurations reinforce rather than compromise mitigation. These findings suggest that memory-augmented multi-agent designs can jointly improve factual reliability, operational efficiency, and auditability without model retraining.

Diego Gosmar, Deborah A. Dahl

Head of AI, Tesisquare · Member, Open Voice Interoperability Initiative · Linux Foundation AI & Data +4

AI Agent Reliability Multi-Agent LLM Systems LLM Hallucination Mitigation Hallucination in Language Models LLM Agent Evaluation Semantic Caching+1