arXiv:2607. 07989v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM) based multi-agent systems enable complex problem solving through coordinated reasoning and action, but their distributed structure also introduces new challenges in diagnosing system-level failures.
By Yufei Xia, Anjun Gao, Yueyang Quan, Zhuqing Liu, Minghong Fang
arXiv:2606. 00765v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM-based agents increasingly solve complex tasks through long trajectories involving reasoning steps, tool calls, and inter-agent communication.
By Md Nakhla Rafi, Md Ahasanuzzaman, Dong Jae Kim, Zhijie Wang, Tse-Hsun Chen
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:2607. 12747v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Failure attribution for LLM-based agentic systems, i.
By Samuel Yeh, Yiwen Zhu, Shaleen Deep, Sharon Li
The paper introduces DCFA, a training‑free framework for attributing failures in large language model‑based multi‑agent systems. DCFA uses a global module to build causal‑inspired dependency graphs from system traces, pinpointing the earliest decisive error, and a local module that refines this attribution through counterfactual reasoning. Experiments on the Who&When benchmark across six LLMs demonstrate that DCFA improves step‑level accuracy by up to 8.27% over existing baselines.
By Zehao Wang, Lanjun Wang, Shilong Jin, Junjie Chen, Yanghua Xiao
The paper introduces TraceTrial-Bench, a benchmark that evaluates the reliability of AI agent harnesses across seven components—context, execution, governance, lifecycle, observability, tools, and verification—using 95 expert-level tasks with executable or state-based ground truth. It employs a Trajectory Tracing module to record agent execution, a two-layer evaluation framework to separately assess agent performance and harness reliability, and a Multi-source Evidence Acquisition module to gather evidence for LLM-based evaluation. The benchmark’s analysis of 3,420 runs across four harnesses and nine models shows harness scores between 59.8% and 72.0%, with 31.1% of runs succeeding despite failing at least one harness criterion, highlighting the need for auditable and reproducible harness evaluation.
By Zhiyong Cao, Hengjie Zhu, Yongxin Wang, Xuchen Li, Jintao Li, Shuxia Liu, Dunqiang Liu, Bo Wang, Kairan Zhang, Cong Lin, JiangDi Yu, Siyuan Liu, Sijia Yao, Yi-Liang Wei, Lingxu Ma, Aijia Wang, Anxin Chen, Zixian Wei, Xiang Ruan, Ruizhi Xu, Ruqian Shi, Baihua Xiao, Sicheng Zhou