arXiv AI
Jul 14
AgentCheck: A Reproduce-Intervene-Mitigate Workbench for LLM Agents over MCP
arXiv:2607. 11098v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Tool-using LLM agents are mostly evaluated assuming all tools work.
Outcome Monitors: Recovery Affordances for Silent Tool Failures
arXiv:2608. 19303v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When a tool call times out, the agent sees the failure and can route around it.
Related stories
arXiv AI
Jun 10
Regimes: An Auditable, Held-Out-Gated Improvement Loop Demonstrated on LongMemEval with ActiveGraph
arXiv:2606. 10241v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Autonomous improvement loops are hard to trust because the improvement process is usually external scaffolding bolted onto the agent: failures go unlogged, diagnoses cannot be replayed, and promote-or-discard decisions land in a side database rather than the agent's own history.
arXiv AI
Aug 14
Dead text or binding clause? Measuring and restoring constraint influence in black-box LLM dialogues
arXiv:2608. 12599v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-turn dialogues let users revoke constraints as easily as impose them, but revocation does not reliably take effect: models keep enacting withdrawn requirements (occasionally beneath comments asserting their removal), a failure we call \emph{behavioral relapse}, or revocation inertia.
arXiv AI
Jul 7
ToolFailBench: Diagnosing Tool-Use Failures in LLM Agents
arXiv:2607. 04686v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Tool calling is central to modern language model agents, but aggregate benchmark scores often hide where tool use fails.
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Aug 4
Fail-Fast, Restart-Smart: Early Failure Prediction and Restart for SWE Agentic Tasks
Software engineering (SWE) agents resolve repository-level issues through long trajectories that grow increasingly expensive as context accumulates. Failed runs tend to be longer and exhibit redundant exploration or looping, suggesting that some failures may be detectable before completion.
arXiv AI
Aug 28
Invocation-Level Reliability of Tool-Using Agents
The paper investigates the reliability of tool‑using agents, focusing on two failure modes: selecting the wrong tool and constructing incorrect arguments. It introduces a correct‑invocation rate metric to distinguish these errors and evaluates five open‑weight models on multi‑step tasks up to depth 8, finding that by depth 6 about 70% of a model’s clean‑context capability is lost due to earlier mistakes. The study reveals that exact‑match scoring against a fixed gold trajectory forces severity and recovery parameters to extreme values, and proposes a conditional‑on‑state scoring remedy that yields more realistic severity estimates.
arXiv Computation and Language
4d ago
Why Didn't It Check? Unsupported Final Claims and Their Repair in Two Tool-Equipped Language Models
The study investigates how language models equipped with tools can still produce unsupported final claims, even when a single tool call could resolve the uncertainty. It defines two metrics—occurrence (how often unsupported claims arise) and conditional repair (how often they are fixed when evidence is provided). Experiments on Qwen3-32B and Gemma 4 show that providing the missing evidence consistently repairs all unsupported claims in the Qwen3-32B setup, while the Gemma 4 model never produced unsupported claims under the tested conditions.
arXiv Computation and Language
4d ago
Fidelity Is Not Enough: Dispatch-Level Instrumentation for Agentic Datasheet Extraction
The paper reports that a model can pass fidelity checks—verifying that extracted values match the source—without actually opening a datasheet, due to a hidden constraint that disables tool use. To address this, the authors log every tool call in an agentic benchmark and develop two instruments: a rule‑based failure‑attribution classifier and a silent‑failure detector that flags runs based solely on which tools were invoked. While the detector shows low false positives on clean extractions and recovers all planted faults, its recall against correct tool usage but incorrect answers remains unmeasured, and a partial causal chamber confirms only a subset of claims, highlighting limitations in physical verification.
arXiv AI
Aug 18
No Task Fails Every Time: Why One-Shot Audits Are Structurally Blind to Agent Damage
arXiv:2608. 15286v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We introduce AgentRelBench, an environment-agnostic reliability instrument that computes ground-truth, severity-priced damage from database state diffs across repeated runs, with no LLM in the measurement path, demonstrated on EnterpriseOps-Gym.
arXiv AI
Jun 2
Monitoring Agentic Systems Before They're Reliable
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 AI
Aug 5
Fail-Fast, Restart-Smart: Early Failure Prediction and Restart for SWE Agentic Tasks
arXiv:2608. 03222v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Software engineering (SWE) agents resolve repository-level issues through long trajectories that grow increasingly expensive as context accumulates.
arXiv Machine Learning
3d ago
CatchBench: When Can an Agent Failure Be Caught?
arXiv:2608.22808v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: When can an agent failure be caught? An audit is usually limited by the record rather than by the method. CatchBench therefore puts one auditor's q...