mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Silent Failure in LLM Agent Systems: The Entropy Principle and the Inevitable Disorder of Autonomous Agents

arXiv 2606.08162 ↗First posted 6 Jun 2026cs.MAcited by 1

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks

Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Model (LLM) agent systems suffer from failures that occur without external triggers -- no injection, no adversarial input, no resource exhaustion. These silent failures -- unexpected deviations from intended behavior under normal conditions -- are routinely misattributed to bugs or configuration errors. Through systematic analysis of over 40,000 controlled trials and long-term production observations spanning 100,000+ agent interactions, we identify a common structural logic underlying these failures. Building on patterns observed in our experiments, we survey the global research literature on autonomous agent reliability and synthesize 22 intrinsic properties of LLM agent systems across six lifecycle layers: foundation semantics, inter-agent transmission, memory persistence, task execution, feedback correction, and systemic evolution. We demonstrate that whenever a sufficient subset of these properties co-exist, system entropy -- the measurable accumulation of disorder: loss of output consistency, task accuracy, and cross-session coherence -- increases monotonically with interaction rounds. We formalize this as the Entropy Principle: S(t) = S0 * e^(alpha * t), with alpha measured empirically across multiple architectures. We propose the PIG (Physical Integrity Gate) Engine with the ADE (Agent Delivery Engineering) protocol suite as an engineering countermeasure to entropy-driven disorder. Our findings establish silent failure not as a bug to be fixed but as a manifestation of Intelligence Entropy -- a physical constraint to be managed through deterministic governance. We argue that any engineering effort stabilizing the structure and order of agent systems participates in a unified mission: keeping intelligent systems reliable as they grow in scale and complexity.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 6 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Jun 2026.

Builds on

6 of 23 references.

References · 6

  1. 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,881
  2. 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,339
  3. 2022Ignore Previous Prompt: Attack Techniques For Language Modelscited by 760
  4. 2021Retrieval Augmentation Reduces Hallucination in Conversationcited by 691
  5. 2025Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?cited by 559
  6. 2026Library Drift: Diagnosing and Fixing a Silent Failure Mode in Self-Evolving LLM Skill Librariescited by 10

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025How Do LLMs Fail In Agentic Scenarios? A Qualitative Analysis of Success and Failure Scenarios of Various LLMs in Agentic Simulations
  2. 2026Memory for Autonomous LLM Agents:Mechanisms, Evaluation, and Emerging Frontiers
  3. 2026Beyond the Leaderboard: A Synthesis of Tool-Use, Planning, and Reasoning Failures in Large Language Model Agents
  4. 2026When Errors Become Narratives: A Longitudinal Taxonomy of Silent Failures in a Production LLM Agent Runtime
  5. 2026MAS-FIRE: Fault Injection and Reliability Evaluation for LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems
  6. 2026A Theory of LLM Information Susceptibility
  7. 2025What Do LLM Agents Do When Left Alone? Evidence of Spontaneous Meta-Cognitive Patterns
  8. 2024Practical Considerations for Agentic LLM Systems