PreprintCited by 6Software Testing and Debugging TechniquesSoftware System Performance and ReliabilitySoftware Engineering Research

TRAIL: Trace Reasoning and Agentic Issue Localization

Open access
Deshpande, Darshan, Gangal, Varun, Mehta, Hersh, Krishnan, Jitin, Kannappan, Anand, Qian, Rebecca·2025·arXiv

Abstract

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2505.08638

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

Authors
Deshpande, D., Gangal, V., Mehta, H., Krishnan, J., Kannappan, A., & Qian, R.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W6891850465
Cited by
3
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
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