# Tracing Agentic Failure from the Flow of Success

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.12747 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.12747/

## Key facts

- Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 45 of its 61 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 14 Jul 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Software engineering coding agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/software-engineering-coding-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 45)

- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [GPT-4o System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21276/) (2024)
- [Neural Ordinary Differential Equations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.07366/) (2018)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.11432/) (2023)
- [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)
- [OpenHands: An Open Platform for AI Software Developers as Generalist Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.16741/) (2024)
- [Large Language Model based Multi-Agents: A Survey of Progress and Challenges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01680/) (2024)
- [Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.13657/) (2025)
- [Neural Controlled Differential Equations for Irregular Time Series](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.08926/) (2020)
- [Agent Laboratory: Using LLM Agents as Research Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.04227/) (2025)
- [Anomaly Transformer: Time Series Anomaly Detection with Association Discrepancy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.02642/) (2021)
- [Deep Learning for Anomaly Detection: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1901.03407/) (2019)
- [Language Models Represent Space and Time](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.02207/) (2023)
- [Magentic-One: A Generalist Multi-Agent System for Solving Complex Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.04468/) (2024)
- [GRU-ODE-Bayes: Continuous modeling of sporadically-observed time series](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.12374/) (2019)
- [A Multimodal Anomaly Detector for Robot-Assisted Feeding Using an LSTM-based Variational Autoencoder](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1711.00614/) (2017)
- [Which Agent Causes Task Failures and When? On Automated Failure Attribution of LLM Multi-Agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.00212/) (2025)
- [Latent ODEs for Irregularly-Sampled Time Series](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1907.03907/) (2019)
- [Large Language Model-Based Agents for Software Engineering: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.02977/) (2024)
- [Neural Stochastic Differential Equations: Deep Latent Gaussian Models in the Diffusion Limit](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.09883/) (2019)
- [Towards End-to-End Automation of AI Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.15497/) (2026)
- [AssistantBench: Can Web Agents Solve Realistic and Time-Consuming Tasks?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.15711/) (2024)
- [Correlation Alignment for Unsupervised Domain Adaptation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1612.01939/) (2016)
- [Deep Learning for Time Series Anomaly Detection: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.05244/) (2022)
- [AgenTracer: Who Is Inducing Failure in the LLM Agentic Systems?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.03312/) (2025)
- [TRAIL: Trace Reasoning and Agentic Issue Localization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.08638/) (2025)
- [Towards Scientific Intelligence: A Survey of LLM-based Scientific Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.24047/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [AttriMem: Attribution-Guided Process Feedback for Agent Memory Construction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.21106/) (2026)
- [Innovation-Residual Auditing of Autonomous Analysis Agents: Localization, Detection Limits, Error Control, and Identifiability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.05490/) (2026)
- [DAAF: From Failure Localization to Editable System Assets in LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.32498/) (2026)
- [Rep2Skill: Representation-Guided Skill Self-Evolution for LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.39149/) (2026)
- [ReCast: Attribution-Oriented Step Representation Learning for LLM-Based Agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.11334/) (2026)
- [Can Failed Trajectories Reveal Where Agents Go Wrong? Agentic Failure Attribution Without Step-Level Labels](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.13105/) (2026)
- [Dream2Discern: Learning from Hard Latent Variants for Runtime Failure Prediction in Multi-Agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.16071/) (2026)
- [DeLoop: Repeated Actions as Self-Supervision for Long-Horizon Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.19376/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Failure attribution for LLM-based agentic systems, i.e., identifying which steps in a failure trajectory caused the task to fail, is critical for debugging and improving these systems. Existing approaches either rely on prompting-based pipelines, which are computationally expensive, or require post-training on failure trajectories with step-level error annotations, which are costly to collect and difficult to scale. We argue that a practical failure attribution model should be lightweight and trainable without step-level supervision on failure data. To this end, we address unsupervised failure attribution, i.e., training exclusively on successful trajectories and identifying error steps at inference time given a failure trajectory. We propose OAT, which casts this problem as one-class learning with neural controlled differential equations, modeling the dynamical pattern of successful trajectories in latent space. At inference time, each step in a failure trajectory is assigned an anomaly score based on its deviation from the dynamics learned on successful trajectories, which is then used to form a set of error steps. With training on only 100 successful trajectories, experiments show that OAT is 200--5000 × faster than prompting-based baselines, and, at the same time, consistently outperforms them in both in-domain and out-of-distribution datasets with +20% and +7% F1 scores, respectively, demonstrating that OAT is a promising and efficient direction for diagnosing agentic system failures.