Which Agent Causes Task Failures and When? On Automated Failure Attribution of LLM Multi-Agent Systems
Open accessAbstract
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
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- Chan, C.-M., Chen, W., Su, Y., Yu, J., Xue, W., Zhang, S., Fu, J., and Liu, Z. Chateval: Towards better llm-based evaluators through multi-agent debate. International Conference on Learning Representations , 2023.
- Hong, S., Zheng, X., Chen, J., Cheng, Y., Wang, J., Zhang, C., Wang, Z., Yau, S. K. S., Lin, Z., Zhou, L., et al. Metagpt: Meta programming for multi-agent collaborative framework. International Conference on Learning Representations , 2023.
- Jimenez, C. E., Yang, J., Wettig, A., Yao, S., Pei, K., Press, O., and Narasimhan, K. Swe-bench: Can language models resolve real-world github issues? International Conference on Learning Representations , 2023.
- Lightman, H., Kosaraju, V., Burda, Y., Edwards, H., Baker, B., Lee, T., Leike, J., Schulman, J., Sutskever, I., and Cobbe, K. Let's verify step by step. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2023.
- Mialon, G., Fourrier, C., Swift, C., Wolf, T., LeCun, Y ., and Scialom, T. Gaia: a benchmark for general ai assistants. International Conference on Learning Representations , 2023.
- Scriven, M. Evaluation thesaurus . Sage Publications, 1991.
- Wu, Q., Bansal, G., Zhang, J., Wu, Y., Zhang, S., Zhu, E., Li, B., Jiang, L., Zhang, X., and Wang, C. Autogen: Enabling next-gen llm applications via multi-agent conversation framework. Conference on Language Modeling , 2023.
- Yao, S., Zhao, J., Yu, D., Du, N., Shafran, I., Narasimhan, K., and Cao, Y. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. ICLR , 2022.
- Zhang, S., Jia, F., Wang, C., and Wu, Q. Targeted hyperparameter optimization with lexicographic preferences over multiple objectives. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2023b.
- Zhang, S., Zhang, J., Liu, J., Song, L., Wang, C., Krishna, R., and Wu, Q. Offline training of language model agents with functions as learnable weights. In International Conference on Machine Learning , 2024b.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?
Cemri, M., Pan, M. Z., Yang, S., Agrawal, L. A., Chopra, B., Tiwari, R., Keutzer, K., Parameswaran, A., Klein, D., Ramchandran, K., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.13657 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
“Further related efforts aim to improve MAS through different approachs: AgentEval [31], AGDebugger [32], MAS debugger Zhang et al. [33].”
Auditing medical multi-agent AI reveals risks of false consensus
Zhu, Y., Gu, L., Wang, Z., Sang, H., Sui, D., Tang, W., Mi, L., Wang, Y., Gao, J., Yao, L., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.10185 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Failure as a Process: An Anatomy of CLI Coding Agent Trajectories
Zhao, X., Li, H., Li, S., Zhao, T., Barr, E. T., Sarro, F., & Ye, H. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.09510 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“Mean-while, other work studies framework reliability [16] and the attribution or localization of failures within long traces [12], [14], [29].”
AutoSaddler: Automatic Harness Optimization with Durable Updates from Agent Execution Traces
Park, S., Kim, W., Tan, R., Zhang, J., Han, W.-S., Gao, P., Park, C., Yao, Y., Fu, R., Nallipogu, E., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.23041
Self-citation"Here, Let Me Help": An Empirical Study of User Interventions in Human–Web Agent Collaboration
Kim, J., Cho, S., Nguyen, D. M., Jeon, J., Shin, M., & Ko, S. (2026) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3791536
When Agents Coordinate: Measuring Coordination in Multi-Agent AI Coding
Destefanis, G., & Aste, T. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.16801
“…misunderstanding: MAST derives fourteen failure modes from execution traces [7], attribution work asks which agent and which step caused a failed run [35], and a study of code-generation teams attributes three quarters of the failures it analyses to the boundary between planner and coder [22].”
- Authors
- Zhang, S., Yin, M., Zhang, J., Liu, J., Han, Z., Zhang, J., Li, B., Wang, C., Wang, H., Chen, Y., & Wu, Q.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2505.00212
- OpenAlex
- W6948524426
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Software System Performance and Reliability
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Keywords
- multi-agent LLM systems, task failure, agent debugging, large language models, multi-agent systems
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
