LLM Agent Reliability
LLM: Large Language Model
Overview
LLM agent reliability studies whether agents can complete tasks correctly, follow instructions and safety constraints, use evidence faithfully, and behave consistently across repeated or extended interactions. Common approaches combine structured harnesses and deterministic tool interfaces with state tracking, evidence checks, runtime monitoring, calibrated abstention, and recovery from failures; training methods also teach agents to verify actions or learn from execution feedback. Evaluations increasingly use interactive benchmarks, noisy or changing tools, repeated trials, and trajectory-level measures alongside final task success. A central tension is that added reasoning, delegation, memory, or orchestration can improve some tasks but also introduce new failure paths, so reliability depends on the model, harness, tools, and evaluation setting together.
Latest papers
843 papers181 papers in the last four weeks, up 93% on the four weeks before. 1.0% of all new papers.
Refute-or-Promote: An Adversarial Stage-Gated Multi-Agent Review Methodology for High-Precision LLM-Assisted Defect Discovery
AI scientists produce results without reasoning scientifically
JTPRO: A Joint Tool-Prompt Reflective Optimization Framework for Language Agents
Do LLMs Need to See Everything? A Benchmark and Study of Failures in LLM-driven Smartphone Automation using Screentext vs. Screenshots
Towards Self-Improving Error Diagnosis in Multi-Agent Systems
Agents Explore but Agents Ignore: LLMs Lack Environmental Curiosity
Towards Shutdownable Agents: Generalizing Stochastic Choice in RL Agents and LLMs
Answer Only as Precisely as Justified: Calibrated Claim-Level Specificity Control for Agentic Systems
Seeing Isn't Believing: Mitigating Belief Inertia via Active Intervention in Embodied Agents
HiveMind: OS-Inspired Scheduling for Concurrent LLM Agent Workloads
Harness as an Asset: Enforcing Determinism via the Convergent AI Agent Framework (CAAF)
Know When to Trust the Skill: Delayed Appraisal and Epistemic Vigilance for Single-Agent LLMs
Don't Start What You Can't Finish: A Counterfactual Audit of Support-State Triage in LLM Agents
When Agents Go Quiet: Output Generation Capacity and Format-Cost Separation for LLM Document Synthesis
Evaluating Tool-Using Language Agents: Judge Reliability, Propagation Cascades, and Runtime Mitigation in AgentProp-Bench
Weak-Link Optimization for Multi-Agent Reasoning and Collaboration
LLMs Corrupt Your Documents When You Delegate
The cognitive companion: a lightweight parallel monitoring architecture for detecting and recovering from reasoning degradation in LLM agents
Towards Robust Real-World Spreadsheet Understanding with Multi-Agent Multi-Format Reasoning
The Long-Horizon Task Mirage? Diagnosing Where and Why Agentic Systems Break
From Agent Loops to Structured Graphs:A Scheduler-Theoretic Framework for LLM Agent Execution
Guardrails Beat Guidance: A Large-Scale Study of Rules, Skills, and Persistent Configuration for Coding Agents
CLAUDE.md, .cursorrules, and the broader family of agent skills, plugin manifests, and persona definitions): we scrape 679 rule files (25{,}532 rules) from GitHub and conduct over 5{,}000 agent runs of Claude Code with Claude Opus 4.6 on SWE-bench Verified. Three patterns emerge. (i) Rule polarity cleanly separates beneficial from harmful rules; we read this through the lens of potential-based reward shaping (PBRS). (ii) Performance gains are largely content-independent: random, shuffled, mismatched-domain, and unconverted-format rule files all match curated rules, pointing to a context priming mechanism. (iii) Individual rules often appear harmful in isolation yet do not visibly accumulate damage in ensemble: pass rates remain stable across rule counts from 0 to 50. These findings expose a hidden reliability risk in the rapidly growing ecosystem of community-authored rules and skills, and they yield a clear principle for safer agent configuration: constrain what agents must not do, rather than prescribing what they should.