arXiv:2602.02475v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: AI agents often fail in ways that are difficult to localize because executions are probabilistic, long-horizon, multi-agent, and mediated by noisy...
By Shraddha Barke, Arnav Goyal, Alind Khare, Avaljot Singh, Suman Nath, Chetan Bansal
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.
By Xianyou Li, Weiran Yan, Yichao Wu, Penghao Liang, Mengwei Yuan, Jianan Liu, Jing Yang
arXiv:2606. 30531v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Tool-augmented language-model agents are often evaluated by whether they select the correct tool, produce valid API arguments, and complete the requested task.
By Rahul Suresh Babu, Shashank Indukuri
The paper introduces a new methodology and analytical framework to diagnose errors in the intermediate execution traces of autonomous Deep Search and Deep Research Large Language Model agents. It presents a taxonomy that classifies these errors into System‑Level and Task‑Level categories, and uses systematic examination of step‑by‑step traces to show how they impact overall performance. The authors also provide empirical experiments and design guidelines aimed at improving the robustness, reasoning, and reliability of these agents.
By Zixuan Yu, Zhenheng Tang, Xiaowen Chu, Bo Han
The paper audits silent failures in agent-to-tool interactions within the ToolUniverse environment, focusing on 15 scientific tools. It identifies 91 failures—primarily missing data or inconsistent search/filtering—occurring mainly in the API and wrapper layers, and shows how these silent failures can propagate downstream into seemingly valid outputs. The authors propose contextual reliability and recommend testing, disclosure, monitoring, and measurement strategies for the agent-tool pipeline.
By Shreya Gopalan, Devansh Singh, Sundaraparipurnan Narayanan
arXiv:2610.27954v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Recent advances in large (vision) language models have enabled computer-use agents that automate digital workflows via fine-grained keyboard and mouse...
By Byeonghun Bang, Sangwoo Park, Jinheon Baek, Kangsan Kim, Youngwan Lee, Sung Ju Hwang
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...
By Zhongwen Luan, Xiaoyu Zhang, Ming Hu, Yue Yang, Jiongchi Yu, Xiaohong Chen
arXiv:2608. 10039v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agentic workflows have become an important abstraction for building reliable LLM-based automation systems by organizing large language models (LLMs), tools, and control logic into explicit execution structures.
By Shuo Hao, You Lu, Bihuan Chen, Xin Peng
arXiv:2610.15459v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: LLM-based multi-agent systems (LLM-MAS) use specialized agents that exchange messages to accomplish complex tasks. Their reliance on networked protoc...
By Jinhao Zhou, Xiaoyu Zhang, Jiongchi Yu, Fahao Chen, Jun Wu
ERPBench introduces a new evaluation paradigm for computer-use agents that operate via screenshots and simulated actions, focusing on enterprise software such as ERP systems. The benchmark tests agents on a live, reproducible ERP platform and scores tasks against ground-truth database values, highlighting challenges like dense interfaces, multi-step interactions, and persistent record errors. Experiments with six agents show that strong general GUI performance does not translate to reliable enterprise outcomes, with many agents frequently saving incorrect data.
By Kratika Bhagtani, Kusha Sridhar, Maziyar Baran Pouyan, Yuying Zhao, Eugene Siow
arXiv:2610.16333v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: As AI agents increasingly act through external tools, tool results are no longer simple outputs but execution artifacts that must remain correctly asso...
By Yutong Zhi, Jie Zhang, Xiuqi Lu, Jiayuan Xu, Jing Shao
The paper introduces FlowAgent, an AI agent deployed at Google to automatically repair test failures in the pre-submit continuous integration workflow. FlowAgent uses a ReAct-style generate-and-validate loop with strict latency and quality filters, and was evaluated on 195 real-world failures with a 67.18% accuracy rate. After deployment, it suggested fixes on 295,508 changes, with developers previewing 65,069 and applying 28,554, and received positive feedback from interviews.
By Celal Ziftci, Spencer Greene, Ray Liu, Livio Dalloro, Lorenzo Dini