# RAFFLES: Reasoning-based Attribution of Faults for LLM Systems

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.06822 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.06822/

## Key facts

- Cited by 21 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 44 of its 51 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 8 Sep 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning for agents, planning and code](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-for-agents-planning-and-code/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 44)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.06180/) (2023)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11916/) (2022)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04761/) (2023)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.03172/) (2023)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10601/) (2023)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [Least-to-Most Prompting Enables Complex Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.10625/) (2022)
- [gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b Model Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.10925/) (2025)
- [GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12983/) (2023)
- [Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.13063/) (2023)
- [Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14975/) (2023)
- [Teaching Models to Express Their Uncertainty in Words](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.14334/) (2022)
- [ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.07201/) (2023)
- [Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.13657/) (2025)
- [Decomposed Prompting: A Modular Approach for Solving Complex Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.02406/) (2022)
- [The Lessons of Developing Process Reward Models in Mathematical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.07301/) (2025)
- [TravelPlanner: A Benchmark for Real-World Planning with Language Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01622/) (2024)
- [GPTScore: Evaluate as You Desire](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04166/) (2023)
- [AgentBoard: An Analytical Evaluation Board of Multi-turn LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.13178/) (2024)
- [Replacing Judges with Juries: Evaluating LLM Generations with a Panel of Diverse Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.18796/) (2024)
- [ProcessBench: Identifying Process Errors in Mathematical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.06559/) (2024)
- [Agent-as-a-Judge: Evaluate Agents with Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.10934/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 21 of 21)

- [Who&When Pro: Can LLMs Really Attribute Failures in AI Agents?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.09996/) (2026)
- [Your Agents Are Aging Too: Agent Lifespan Engineering for Deployed Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.26302/) (2026)
- [When Agents Fail: A Comprehensive Study of Bugs in LLM Agents with Automated Labeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.15232/) (2026)
- [Efficient Failure Management for Multi-Agent Systems with Reasoning Trace Representation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.21522/) (2026)
- [Conformal Agent Error Attribution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.06788/) (2026)
- [CUADebug: Diagnosing and Repairing Computer-Use Agent Failures](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.02643/) (2026)
- [StepFinder: A Temporal Semantic Framework for Failure Attribution in Multi-Agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.03467/) (2026)
- [EDGE: Error Dependency Graph-Guided Multi-Error Attribution in Multi-Agent LLM Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.01360/) (2026)
- [QUIVER: A Formal Framework for Quantifying Perturbation Propagation and Bifurcation in Compound AI Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.23956/) (2026)
- [LongRCA Bench: Root-Cause Localization in Long-Horizon Agent Trajectories](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.15242/) (2026)
- [Themis: Training Robust Multilingual Code Reward Models for Flexible Multi-Criteria Scoring](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.00754/) (2026)
- [SAFARI: Scaling Long Horizon Agentic Fault Attribution via Active Investigation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.24626/) (2026)
- [Autonomous Repair for Multi-Agent Systems via Monte-Carlo Tree Search](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.29055/) (2026)
- [ASCon: A Direction-Aware Reciprocal Agent--Step Contextualization Model for Failure Attribution in Multi-Agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.10646/) (2026)
- [Adaptive Influence Graphs for Failure Attribution in Multi-Agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.24361/) (2026)
- [Towards a Science of Collective AI: LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems Need a Transition from Blind Trial-and-Error to Rigorous Science](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.05289/) (2026)
- [Diagnosis-Driven Automatic Repair for Agentic Workflow via Symbolic Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.02882/) (2026)
- [Localizing Emergent Failures in Agentic AI: Recovering Minimal Repair Families via Counterfactual Replay](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.29228/) (2026)
- [Diagnosing with Insights: Structured Analysis of Agent Failures via Behavioral Abstractions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.02371/) (2026)
- [Can Failed Trajectories Reveal Where Agents Go Wrong? Agentic Failure Attribution Without Step-Level Labels](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.13105/) (2026)
- [Structural Baselines Matter for Agent Failure Detection and Attribution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.16661/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The advent of complex, interconnected long-horizon LLM systems has made it incredibly tricky to identify where and when these systems break down. Evaluation capabilities that currently exist today are limited in that they often focus on simple metrics, end-to-end outcomes, and are dependent on the perspectives of humans. In order to match the increasing complexity of these many component systems, evaluation frameworks must also be able to reason, probe, iterate, and understand the nuanced logic passing through these systems. In this paper, we present RAFFLES, an offline evaluation architecture that incorporates iterative reasoning. Specifically, RAFFLES operates as an iterative, multi-component pipeline, using a central Judge to systematically identify faults and a set of specialized Evaluators to assess the quality of the candidate faults as well as rationales of the Judge. We evaluated RAFFLES with several benchmarks - the Who&When dataset to identify step-level faults in multi-agent systems and the ReasonEval datasets to diagnose step-level mathematical reasoning errors. RAFFLES outperforms strong baselines, achieving an accuracy of over 20% and 50% on the Who&When Hand-Crafted and Algorithmically-Generated datasets, and over 80% on the ReasonEval datasets. These results demonstrate a key step towards introducing automated fault detection for autonomous systems over labor-intensive manual review.