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:2607. 19449v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Evaluation frameworks for tool-augmented LLM agents focus overwhelmingly on capability metrics or explicit tool crashes, leaving silent infrastructure failures and HTTP 200 responses with empty, null, or malformed payloads largely unaudited.
By Aarushi Singh
arXiv:2608. 13867v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI coding agents are commonly evaluated as models but deployed as systems.
By Stephanie Jarmak
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.
By Harsh Raj, Vipul Gupta, Anas Mahmoud, Razvan-Gabriel Dumitru, Darvin Yi, Aakash Sabharwal, Yunzhong He
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. 02282v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Orchestrating Large Language Models into Multi-Agent Systems (LLM-MAS) has unlocked remarkable reasoning capabilities, yet emergent failures and hallucinations that resist characterisation block their deployment in safety-critical domains -- a gap made legally untenable by emerging AI regulation.
By I\~naki Dellibarda Varela, R. Sendra-Arranz, Pablo Romero-Sorozabal, J. M. Valverde-Garc\'ia, Annemarie F. Laudanski, \'Alvaro Guti\'errez, Eduardo Rocon, Manuel Cebrian