mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

When Agentic Executions Fail: Detecting and Localizing Runtime Faults from Telemetry

arXiv 2608.14680 ↗First posted 4 Aug 2026cs.AI cs.SEcited by 1

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Reliability in LLM-based agentic systems is a property of the whole execution (its tool calls, model calls, guardrails, and inter-agent messages), not of the final answer alone, yet evaluating only task outcomes reveals little about how or why a run fails. We present AGENTCHAOSBENCH, a benchmark for detecting and localizing runtime faults in agentic systems from their execution telemetry. We run five heterogeneous applications that coordinate agents over the Agent-to-Agent protocol and call tools through the Model Context Protocol, and inject ten types of operational fault (unavailable or slow tools, corrupted or oversized responses, and delayed, looped, or misrouted delegations and bypassed guardrails) at their tool, model, guardrail, and inter-agent boundaries, alongside a no-fault control. The resulting dataset contains 275 sanitized traces: 250 faulty executions spanning ten fault types and 25 no-fault controls. Each faulty trace is aligned with the no-fault execution of the same input; fault-type labels and, where applicable, location labels are held out from diagnosis. On structured single-trace inputs, a first set of zero-shot LLM baselines shows the task is far from solved: local detectors up to 14B parameters reach only 13.6-19.2% top-1 fault-type accuracy and the frontier DeepSeek-v4-pro only 24.8%, while jointly identifying the fault type and its location tops out at 22%; reference-dependent faults (above all a bypassed guardrail) stay near-unsolved from a single trace. An aligned reference improves selected relative faults but does not resolve guardrail bypass. The held-out labels and compact prediction format support reproducible comparison of LLM-based and non-LLM diagnosis methods.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper 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 9 of its 19 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Aug 2026.

Builds on

9 of 19 references.

Closest ancestors · 5

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026Rethinking Failure Attribution in Multi-Agent Systems: A Multi-Perspective Benchmark and Evaluation26 Mar
  2. 2026ReliabilityBench: Evaluating LLM Agent Reliability Under Production-Like Stress Conditions3 Jan
  3. 2025Where LLM Agents Fail and How They can Learn From Failures29 Sep
  4. 2025TRAIL: Trace Reasoning and Agentic Issue Localization13 May
  5. 2025Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?17 Mar

Other references · 4

  1. 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agentscited by 1,267
  2. 2017Chaos Engineeringcited by 19
  3. 2026Debugging the Debuggers: Failure-Anchored Structured Recovery for Software Engineering Agentscited by 4
  4. 2026AI-NativeBench: An Open-Source White-Box Agentic Benchmark Suite for AI-Native Systemscited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026TelemetrySuffBench: Is Agent Telemetry Sufficient for Failure-Origin Diagnosis?
  2. 2026AgentChaos: Chaos Engineering for Agent Systems via Programmatic Fault Injection
  3. 2026Observability and Fault Injection for LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems in Software Engineering
  4. 2026AgentDebugX: An Open-Source Toolkit for Failure Observability, Attribution, and Recovery in LLM Agents
  5. 2026Evaluating Agentic Code Repair Capabilities in Distributed Systems
  6. 2026When Messages Go Wrong: Understanding Communication Faults in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems
  7. 2026Agent Mesh: Reliability Primitives for Non-Idempotent Agent Delegation - Identity Adequacy and Evidence Adequacy
  8. 2026AgentTether: Graph-Guided Diagnosis and Runtime Intervention for Reliable LLM Agent Operation