The paper investigates why large language model (LLM) agents fail on long, multi‑step production workflows despite high benchmark success. By testing nine models (1.2 B–671 B parameters) across six task families and multiple horizons, the authors find that task success follows a geometric decay governed by a per‑step reliability that never reaches 1, leading to inevitable collapse for long horizons. The degradation is driven mainly by step count rather than context length, and the study quantifies a significant gap between benchmark and production performance, especially for agentic tool‑use tasks.
By Shubhra Mittal
Enterprise practitioners read agent leaderboards as if they ranked agent capability. We show, across three open agent-trace benchmarks (TheAgentCompany, $τ^2$-bench, and AppWorld), that the agent main effect accounts for less than 3% of total variance in every dataset and check type, while the agent-by-task interaction accounts for 7-23%.
arXiv:2608. 11323v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Enterprise practitioners read agent leaderboards as if they ranked agent capability.
By Vasundra Srinivasan
arXiv:2606. 29654v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent deliberation among LLMs can improve reasoning, but deployment requires deciding when the current answer is reliable enough to act on and when it should be escalated to human review.
By Mengdie Flora Wang, Haochen Xie, Guanghui Wang, Devin Zhang, Jae Oh Woo
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
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.
By Shrey Nag, Sachita, Abhishek Kumar Singh, Lipi Goel, Rajeshwar Singh Janwar