惯性聚合 高效追踪和阅读你感兴趣的博客、新闻、科技资讯
阅读原文 在惯性聚合中打开

推荐订阅源

Apple Machine Learning Research
Apple Machine Learning Research
爱范儿
爱范儿
博客园_首页
博客园 - 【当耐特】
V
Visual Studio Blog
博客园 - 叶小钗
月光博客
月光博客
美团技术团队
J
Java Code Geeks
小众软件
小众软件
Y
Y Combinator Blog
博客园 - Franky
Martin Fowler
Martin Fowler
博客园 - 聂微东
Microsoft Azure Blog
Microsoft Azure Blog
IT之家
IT之家
MyScale Blog
MyScale Blog
人人都是产品经理
人人都是产品经理
Microsoft Security Blog
Microsoft Security Blog
OSCHINA 社区最新新闻
OSCHINA 社区最新新闻
阮一峰的网络日志
阮一峰的网络日志
酷 壳 – CoolShell
酷 壳 – CoolShell
钛媒体:引领未来商业与生活新知
钛媒体:引领未来商业与生活新知
云风的 BLOG
云风的 BLOG

cs.CL updates on arXiv.org

Playing Along: Learning a Double-Agent Defender for Belief Steering via Theory of Mind RPA-Check: A Multi-Stage Automated Framework for Evaluating Dynamic LLM-based Role-Playing Agents A Triadic Suffix Tokenization Scheme for Numerical Reasoning Hidden Measurement Error in LLM Pipelines Distorts Annotation, Evaluation, and Benchmarking Synthius-Mem: Brain-Inspired Hallucination-Resistant Persona Memory Achieving 94.4% Memory Accuracy and 99.6% Adversarial Robustness on LoCoMo Time is Not a Label: Continuous Phase Rotation for Temporal Knowledge Graphs and Agentic Memory NovBench: Evaluating Large Language Models on Academic Paper Novelty Assessment Policy Split: Incentivizing Dual-Mode Exploration in LLM Reinforcement with Dual-Mode Entropy Regularization METER: Evaluating Multi-Level Contextual Causal Reasoning in Large Language Models Think Before you Write: QA-Guided Reasoning for Character Descriptions in Books METRO: Towards Strategy Induction from Expert Dialogue Transcripts for Non-collaborative Dialogues Retrieval as Generation: A Unified Framework with Self-Triggered Information Planning Do LLMs Know Tool Irrelevance? Demystifying Structural Alignment Bias in Tool Invocations Enhancing Multimodal Large Language Models for Ancient Chinese Character Evolution Analysis via Glyph-Driven Fine-Tuning Polyglot Teachers: Evaluating Language Models for Multilingual Synthetic Data Generation Exploring Knowledge Conflicts for Faithful LLM Reasoning: Benchmark and Method CocoaBench: Evaluating Unified Digital Agents in the Wild MathAgent: Adversarial Evolution of Constraint Graphs for Mathematical Reasoning Data Synthesis Evaluating Memory Capability in Continuous Lifelog Scenario How Robust Are Large Language Models for Clinical Numeracy? An Empirical Study on Numerical Reasoning Abilities in Clinical Contexts Efficient Training for Cross-lingual Speech Language Models Shared Emotion Geometry Across Small Language Models: A Cross-Architecture Study of Representation, Behavior, and Methodological Confounds A Systematic Analysis of the Impact of Persona Steering on LLM Capabilities Uncertainty-Aware Web-Conditioned Scientific Fact-Checking When Valid Signals Fail: Regime Boundaries Between LLM Features and RL Trading Policies When Verification Fails: How Compositionally Infeasible Claims Escape Rejection Mem$^2$Evolve: Towards Self-Evolving Agents via Co-Evolutionary Capability Expansion and Experience Distillation AOP-Smart: A RAG-Enhanced Large Language Model Framework for Adverse Outcome Pathway Analysis OccuBench: Evaluating AI Agents on Real-World Professional Tasks via Language Environment Simulation Advancing Polish Language Modeling through Tokenizer Optimization in the Bielik v3 7B and 11B Series
Which Agent Causes Task Failures and When? On Automated F...
Shaokun Zhang, Ming Yin, Jieyu Zhang, Jiale Liu, Zhiguang Han, J · 2025-05-01 · via cs.CL updates on arXiv.org

Failure attribution in LLM multi-agent systems-identifying the agent and step responsible for task failures-provides crucial clues for systems debugging but remains underexplored and labor-intensive. In this paper, we propose and formulate a new research area: automated failure attribution for LLM multi-agent systems. To support this initiative, we introduce the Who&When dataset, comprising extensive failure logs from 127 LLM multi-agent systems with fine-grained annotations linking failures to specific agents and decisive error steps. Using the Who&When, we develop and evaluate three automated failure attribution methods, summarizing their corresponding pros and cons. The best method achieves 53.5% accuracy in identifying failure-responsible agents but only 14.2% in pinpointing failure steps, with some methods performing below random. Even SOTA reasoning models, such as OpenAI o1 and DeepSeek R1, fail to achieve practical usability. These results highlight the task's complexity and the need for further research in this area. Code and dataset are available at https://github.com/mingyin1/Agents_Failure_Attribution