mlsanityData to 13 Oct 2026

From Confident Closing to Silent Failure: Characterizing False Success in LLM Agents

arXiv 2606.09863 ↗First posted 1 Jun 2026cs.LGcited by 13

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents

Abstract (arXiv)

LLM agents can fail silently by asserting task completion when the environment state shows otherwise. We study this failure mode, false success, across two agent benchmarks: 9,876 tau2-bench trajectories from 8 model families and 1,879 AppWorld trajectories from 4 model families with text-independent ground truth. False success is common but varies by setting: 45--48% of failures in single-control tau2-bench domains, 3% in dual-control telecom, and 75.8% among AppWorld self-assessing coding-agent trajectories with explicit status claims. LLM judges fail reliably: no configuration across 5 judges, 5 prompt strategies, and full task specifications exceeds AUROC 0.65 on tau2-bench, and the same judges reach only 0.54 AUROC on AppWorld API-call traces. Judges rely on surface completion proxies -- confident closing language in tau2-bench and coarse action-sequence volume in AppWorld -- rather than verified state changes. Lightweight TF-IDF detectors achieve task-disjoint AUROC 0.83 on tau2-bench and 0.95 on AppWorld, recovering 4--8x more false successes than the best judge at the same flag rate with 3,300x lower latency. These results suggest that production monitoring should use lightweight, domain-calibrated detectors as triage signals rather than relying on LLM judges as the primary monitor for false success.

Key facts. Cited by 13 papers in the map (data through 13 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 16 of its 19 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Jun 2026.

Builds on

16 of 19 references.

Closest ancestors · 5

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026Beyond Task Completion: Revealing Corrupt Success in LLM Agents through Procedure-Aware Evaluation3 Mar
  2. 2025SABER: Small Actions, Big Errors -- Safeguarding Mutating Steps in LLM Agents26 Nov
  3. 2025AgenTracer: Who Is Inducing Failure in the LLM Agentic Systems?3 Sep
  4. 2025Which Agent Causes Task Failures and When? On Automated Failure Attribution of LLM Multi-Agent Systems30 Apr
  5. 2024AppWorld: A Controllable World of Apps and People for Benchmarking Interactive Coding Agents26 Jul

Other references · 11

  1. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,492
  2. 2024τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domainscited by 1,335
  3. 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agentscited by 1,242
  4. 2023GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistantscited by 1,102
  5. 2024Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluatorscited by 877
  6. 2022Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluationscited by 824
  7. 2023Siren's Song in the AI Ocean: A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Modelscited by 697
  8. 2025τ2-Bench: Evaluating Conversational Agents in a Dual-Control Environmentcited by 582
  9. 2023Prometheus: Inducing Fine-grained Evaluation Capability in Language Modelscited by 563
  10. 2024Agent-as-a-Judge: Evaluate Agents with Agentscited by 231
  11. 2024Judging the Judges: Evaluating Alignment and Vulnerabilities in LLMs-as-Judgescited by 201

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 13 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 13.

13 papers.

Sort:

By area:

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Confident and Wrong: Silent Semantic Failures in Coding Agents
  2. 2025How Do LLMs Fail In Agentic Scenarios? A Qualitative Analysis of Success and Failure Scenarios of Various LLMs in Agentic Simulations
  3. 2026Verified Tool Calls Improve LLM Agent Reliability Under Non-Atomic Failures
  4. 2026Coherence Collapse: Diagnosing Why Code Agents Fail After Reaching the Right Code
  5. 2026AgentAbstain: Do LLM Agents Know When Not to Act?
  6. 2026Early Diagnosis of Wasted Computation in Multi-Agent LLM Systems via Failure-Aware Observability
  7. 2026Plans Don't Persist: Why Context Management Is Load Bearing for LLM Agents
  8. 2026Reason Less, Verify More: Deterministic Gates Recover a Silent Policy-Violation Failure Mode in Tool-Using LLM Agents