arXiv:2608. 02464v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM agents fail mid-episode -- they loop, cascade tool errors, drift off goal, fabricate results, or silently absorb corrupted content -- and the standard remedy, judging every step with a second LLM, costs more than the agent itself.
By Sunny Dubey
arXiv:2607. 11098v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Tool-using LLM agents are mostly evaluated assuming all tools work.
By Aritra Mazumder, Nusrat jahan Lia
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.
By Yuanhong Cai, Xiaohui Nie, Kanglin Yin, Changhua Pei, Yongqian Sun, Shenglin Zhang, Haibin Liu, Guiyang Liu, Xidao Wen, Fang Situ, Dan Pei
arXiv:2606. 09863v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM agents can fail silently by asserting task completion when the environment state shows otherwise.
By Laksh Advani
arXiv:2606. 05806v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing benchmarks evaluate Tool-Integrated Reasoning (TIR) in LLMs on idealized ''happy paths'', largely overlooking real-world tool failures.
By Dongsheng Zhu, Xuchen Ma, Yucheng Shen, Xiang Li, Yukun Zhao, Shuaiqiang Wang, Lingyong Yan, Dawei Yin
arXiv:2608. 07899v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agent systems increasingly expose execution traces, yet telemetry that reveals a failure may still be inadequate for identifying where that failure originated.
By Yuxuan Zhu, Peng Pu
arXiv:2607. 10059v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agent systems based on large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed for autonomous tasks, yet existing evaluations mostly focus on task success rather than whether agents know when to abstain.
By Xun Liu, Yi Evie Zhang, Vira Kasprova, Parisa Rabbani, Pardis Sadat Zahraei, Tianyu Zhang, Ali Ebrahimpour-Boroojeny, Varun Chandrasekaran
arXiv:2605. 08717v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Software engineering agents are increasingly deployed in evaluable engineering environments, yet post-failure recovery remains costly, manual, and ad hoc.
By Chenyu Zhao, Shenglin Zhang, Yihang Lin, Wenwei Gu, Zhimin Chen, Yongqian Sun, Dan Pei, Chetan Bansal, Saravan Rajmohan, Minghua Ma
arXiv:2607. 08010v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Production LLM agents often waste latency and reliability by regenerating code for the same procedural steps on every request.
By Kalle Kujanp\"a\"a, Ning Liu, Shahnawaz Alam, Yeshwanth Reddy Sura, Tianyu Yang, Kristina Klinkner, Shervin Malmasi
arXiv:2606. 01416v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Tool-augmented large language model (LLM) agents rely on orchestration layers that coordinate planning, retrieval, tool invocation, validation, memory, and recovery.
By Rahul Suresh Babu, Adarsh Agrawal
arXiv:2608. 14863v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-based coding agents have advanced rapidly on single-process SWE tasks, with frontier models now clustering in the high-70s on SWE-bench Verified.
By Yibo Yan, Huijuan Wang, Junzhou He, Yizhuo Liang, Shaoyu Wang, Huanchen Sun, Seo Jin Park
arXiv:2607. 16215v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing guardrail systems for large language model agents operate as binary classifiers that block unsafe content, leaving organizations to discard failing outputs and retry from scratch.
By Sumit Verma, Pritam Prasun, Pritish Kumar