FLARE: Agentic Coverage-Guided Fuzzing for LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
Multi-Agent LLM Systems (MAS) have been adopted to automate complex human workflows by breaking down tasks into subtasks. However, due to the non-deterministic behavior of LLM agents and the intricate interactions between agents, MAS applications frequently encounter failures, including infinite loops and failed tool invocations. Traditional software testing techniques are ineffective in detecting such failures due to the lack of LLM agent specification, the large behavioral space of MAS, and semantic-based correctness judgment. This paper presents FLARE, a novel testing framework tailored for MAS. FLARE takes the source code of MAS as input and extracts specifications and behavioral spaces from agent definitions. Based on these specifications, FLARE builds test oracles and conducts coverage-guided fuzzing to expose failures. It then analyzes execution logs to judge whether each test has passed and generates failure reports. Our evaluation on 16 diverse open-source applications demonstrates that FLARE achieves 96.9% inter-agent coverage and 91.1% intra-agent coverage, outperforming baselines by 9.5% and 1.0%. FLARE also uncovers 56 previously unknown failures unique to MAS.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 14 of its 60 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Apr 2026.
Builds on
14 of 60 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 13
- 2023Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behaviorcited by 3,568
- 2024HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusalcited by 1,429
- 2023CAMEL: Communicative Agents for "Mind" Exploration of Large Language Model Societycited by 1,395
- 2024Agent-SafetyBench: Evaluating the Safety of LLM Agentscited by 306
- 2025AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: A Conceptual Taxonomy, Applications and Challengescited by 169
- 2024Attacks, Defenses and Evaluations for LLM Conversation Safety: A Surveycited by 130
- 2023Experiential Co-Learning of Software-Developing Agentscited by 57
- 2025textitAgents Under Siege: Breaking Pragmatic Multi-Agent LLM Systems with Optimized Prompt Attackscited by 34
- 2025HedgeAgents: A Balanced-aware Multi-agent Financial Trading Systemcited by 24
- 2024Doc2OracLL: Investigating the Impact of Documentation on LLM-based Test Oracle Generationcited by 10
- 2021Locating Faults with Program Slicing: An Empirical Analysiscited by 7
- 2025Technical Implementation of Tippy: Multi-Agent Architecture and System Design for Drug Discovery Laboratory Automationcited by 2
1 more
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026MAS-FIRE: Fault Injection and Reliability Evaluation for LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems
- 2026AgentFixer: From Failure Detection to Fix Recommendations in LLM Agentic Systems
- 2026Complex Agents, Shallow Tests: Demystifying and Enhancing Test Adequacy of Agent Harness in the Wild
- 2026Automated structural testing of LLM-based agents: methods, framework, and case studies
- 2026Tangent: An Empirical Study of Testing Practices for LLM-Based Agent Applications
- 2026Repair or Resample? Rethinking Failure Debugging in LLM Multi-Agent Systems
- 2026ARIA: Runtime Inspection and Amendment for Multi-Agent Systems
- 2026MAESTRO: Multi-Agent Evaluation Suite for Testing, Reliability, and Observability