arXiv Machine Learning
Locating Hidden Failures Makes Long-Horizon Agents More Reliable
Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Machine Learning.
Related stories
arXiv AI
Sep 11
AgentAudit: An Open, Extensible Framework for Full-Lifecycle Trust Evaluation of AI Agents
AgentAudit is an open, extensible framework that evaluates the full lifecycle of AI agents, assessing planning, tool selection, execution, memory, and reasoning across ten dimensions such as instruction integrity, security, and alignment. Unlike existing benchmarks that focus on single aspects, AgentAudit analyzes the entire execution trace to attribute failures to specific stages. The framework was tested on five large language models, revealing significant differences in trustworthiness even among models with similar task‑completion performance.
arXiv AI
Aug 7
SearchAuditor: Auditing and Attributing Failures in Long-Horizon Search Agents
arXiv:2608. 05212v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Deep search agents tackle challenging questions through long-horizon web interactions, a process that is both complex and fragile: small reasoning errors may propagate through long, noisy trajectories into fluent but incorrect answers.
arXiv AI
Aug 11
FailForge: Distilling Procedural Competence from Persistent Failures into Code Agents
arXiv:2608. 08570v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Rejection sampling fine-tuning (RFT) is widely used to train code agents by generating trajectories on verifiable software engineering tasks, retaining those that pass the tests, and fine-tuning on the successful rollouts.
arXiv AI
Jul 21
Fantastic Adaptive Taxonomies and How to Use Them
arXiv:2607. 16387v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: An agent system's execution traces record how it fails, and procedures that improve such a system without changing model weights (trajectory selection, prompt and workflow optimization, runtime monitoring) read these traces for feedback.
arXiv AI
Sep 2
trajectory-judge: What Outcome-Only LLM Judges Miss on Agent Trajectories
The paper "trajectory-judge: What Outcome-Only LLM Judges Miss on Agent Trajectories" examines the limitations of outcome-only evaluation for large language model agents. Using a deterministic tool‑using support‑desk environment with a scripted oracle policy and a fault injector, the authors compare five different judging approaches—programmatic rules, outcome‑only, step‑rubric at two model sizes, and a self‑consistency ensemble—on metrics such as detection, step localisation, fault typing, calibration, and cost across 400 trajectories. The study finds that outcome‑only judges miss many silent faults and generate false positives, while step‑rubric judges achieve higher recall with no false alarms but at greater cost, and that none of the judges read the final reply, allowing fabricated promises to evade detection. "whyItMatters":"The findings highlight that current production‑default outcome‑only evaluations can overlook critical failures in agent behavior, underscoring the need for more nuanced, step‑level judging methods to ensure reliable LLM agent performance."
arXiv AI
Aug 3
Model or Harness? An Interaction-Centric Taxonomy for Localizing Agent Failures
arXiv:2607. 28802v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing evaluations often reduce agent failures to system-level outcomes, obscuring where the fault originated and which intervention would improve the agent system.