arXiv:2607. 18245v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Exact-match evaluation of agent-calling obscures qualitatively different failure modes: a model may select the right function yet hallucinate argument values, or satisfy a schema while choosing a agent for the wrong reason.
arXiv:2607. 18754v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM agent failures are difficult to debug because the step where an error surfaces is often not the one that caused it.
arXiv:2608. 06346v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM-based agentic systems have shown remarkable capabilities in complex domains, while suffering from cascading errors and difficulty in debugging.
The Agent Error Dataset (AED) presents 50,228 error–diagnosis pairs collected from 9,961 source tasks across 33 environments, 19 harness families, and 23 policy models in text‑based agent systems. A five‑stage Agentic Error‑to‑Training (AET) pipeline generates diagnoses and proposed corrections, verifies them against recorded evidence, and creates separate training views for diagnosis and actor recovery. Experiments show that first‑proposal corrections improve verifier pass rates from 18.4% to 51.1%, and fine‑tuning with full‑diagnosis data raises Qwen3‑8B’s exact‑step agreement from 47.2% to 63.6% on a holdout set.
arXiv:2608.25920v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems (MASs) are increasingly applied to long-horizon complex tasks, their reliability has emerge...
arXiv:2606. 04435v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-step agentic retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) pipelines have demonstrated significant capability for complex reasoning tasks, yet remain vulnerable to a class of failure that existing hallucination detection mechanisms systematically miss: cascading hallucination, where errors introduced at early pipeline stages propagate and amplify across successive reasoning steps, producing confident but factually incorrect final outputs.
arXiv:2606. 01365v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Tool-using multi-agent large language model (LLM) systems spend computation through model tokens, tool calls, retries, and code execution before producing an answer.
ParaRecover is a new process-level benchmark designed to evaluate error localization and recovery in multi-turn parallel tool-use agents. It contains 10,626 instances across two difficulty levels, built on a taxonomy of 14 error types that cover planning dependencies, tool selection, and argument matching. The benchmark introduces the SDE rubric, which assesses structural integrity, diagnostic reasoning, and evolutionary strategy during agent execution, and demonstrates that it can guide improvements in agents’ reflective recovery capabilities.
The paper presents a systematic analysis of five state‑of‑the‑art automated program repair agents, tracing their decision‑making across 500 real‑world repair tasks. It finds that while the agents perform well on simple fixes, they struggle with logic‑intensive bugs, often producing verbose, overfitted patches that pass tests without addressing root causes. Key bottlenecks identified include poor test generation, limited regression test selection, and reliance on primitive tooling without access to debuggers or advanced program analysis tools.
The paper introduces AGENTSCOPE, a neuro‑symbolic method for diagnosing failures in large language model agents. It abstracts agent trajectories into structured representations and employs neural invariants to define behavior properties. Using LLM‑guided reasoning on these abstractions, AGENTSCOPE identifies both the failure step and its type, outperforming existing techniques on several datasets.
arXiv:2606. 29193v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-based agents are reshaping microservice operations into AgentOps, where benchmarks are key to evaluating failure diagnosis over multimodal observability data.
arXiv:2606. 02494v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agentic systems entering production typically operate as partially integrated assemblies where structural defects, not task-level errors, dominate the failure landscape.
arXiv:2607. 12605v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have improved automated program repair (APR), but two limitations remain.