TRAIL: Trace Reasoning and Agentic Issue Localization
Open accessAbstract
The increasing adoption of agentic workflows across diverse domains brings a critical need to scalably and systematically evaluate the complex traces these systems generate. Current evaluation methods depend on manual, domain-specific human analysis of lengthy workflow traces - an approach that does not scale with the growing complexity and volume of agentic outputs. Error analysis in these settings is further complicated by the interplay of external tool outputs and language model reasoning, making it more challenging than traditional software debugging. In this work, we (1) articulate the need for robust and dynamic evaluation methods for agentic workflow traces, (2) introduce a formal taxonomy of error types encountered in agentic systems, and (3) present a set of 148 large human-annotated traces (TRAIL) constructed using this taxonomy and grounded in established agentic benchmarks. To ensure ecological validity, we curate traces from both single and multi-agent systems, focusing on real-world applications such as software engineering and open-world information retrieval. Our evaluations reveal that modern long context LLMs perform poorly at trace debugging, with the best Gemini-2.5-pro model scoring a mere 11% on TRAIL. Our dataset and code are made publicly available to support and accelerate future research in scalable evaluation for agentic workflows.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Context handling failures compound these challenges as agents struggle with long-term context maintenance encompassing both episodic and semantic information.
“Context handling failures compound these challenges as agents struggle with long-term context maintenance encompassing both episodic and semantic information [214, 1122],”
From A Survey of Context Engineering for Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as [214]
Environmental misconfigurations and LLM hallucinations can distract agentic systems, with poor recovery leading to goal deviation that becomes amplified in multi-agent setups with distributed subtasks.
“and environmental misconfigurations and LLM hallucinations can distract agentic systems, with poor recovery leading to goal deviation that becomes amplified in multi-agent setups with distributed subtasks [214, 1099].”
From A Survey of Context Engineering for Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as [214]
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Survey of Context Engineering for Large Language Models
Mei, L., Yao, J., Ge, Y., Wang, Y., Bi, B., Cai, Y., Liu, J., Li, M., Li, Z.-Z., Zhang, D., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.13334 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Wink: Recovering from Misbehaviors in Coding Agents
Nanda, R., Maddila, C., Jha, S., Khan, E. M., Paltenghi, M., & Chandra, S. (2026) · ACM International Conference on AI-Powered Software (AIware) · doi:10.1145/3805760.3814911 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Holistic Agent Leaderboard: The Missing Infrastructure for AI Agent Evaluation
Kapoor, S., Stroebl, B., Kirgis, P., Nadgir, N., Siegel, Z. S., Wei, B., Xue, T., Chen, Z., Chen, F., Utpala, S., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.11977
AJ-Bench: Benchmarking Agent-as-a-Judge for Environment-Aware Evaluation
Shi, W., Wang, Y., Zhao, Y., Chen, Y., Feng, F., Hao, X., Su, X., Gu, Q., Su, H., Cai, X., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.18240
AgentChaosBench: Benchmarking External Fault Detection and Localization in Agentic Systems
Zhang, C., Li, Y., Tian, Y., Bachras, M., & Jacobsen, H. (2026) · doi:10.1145/3843782.3844662
Beyond Outcomes: Toward Process-Aware Software Agents
Liu, S. (2026) · IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE) · doi:10.1145/3832783.3844569
- Authors
- Deshpande, D., Gangal, V., Mehta, H., Krishnan, J., Kannappan, A., & Qian, R.
- ORCID
- Krishnan, Jitin
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2505.08638
- OpenAlex
- W6891850465
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Software System Performance and Reliability
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Keywords
- agentic workflows, error localization, error taxonomy, large language models, multi-agent systems, long-context LLMs, dataset construction, software engineering, information retrieval
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