# Adaptive Influence Graphs for Failure Attribution in Multi-Agent Systems

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.24361 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.24361/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 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 13 of its 23 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 25 Aug 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, 13 of 13)

- [Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.03172/) (2023)
- [Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formatting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.11324/) (2023)
- [AgenTracer: Who Is Inducing Failure in the LLM Agentic Systems?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.03312/) (2025)
- [Who is Introducing the Failure? Automatically Attributing Failures of Multi-Agent Systems via Spectrum Analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.13782/) (2025)
- [From Failed Trajectories to Reliable LLM Agents: Diagnosing and Repairing Harness Flaws](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.06324/) (2026)
- [Where Did It All Go Wrong? A Hierarchical Look into Multi-Agent Error Attribution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.04886/) (2025)
- [Rethinking Failure Attribution in Multi-Agent Systems: A Multi-Perspective Benchmark and Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.25001/) (2026)
- [RAFFLES: Reasoning-based Attribution of Faults for LLM Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.06822/) (2025)
- [Automatic Failure Attribution and Critical Step Prediction Method for Multi-Agent Systems Based on Causal Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.08682/) (2025)
- [Distance between Relevant Information Pieces Causes Bias in Long-Context LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.14641/) (2024)
- [FALAT: Tracing Failures in LLM Agent Trajectories via Dependency-Guided Search](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.00765/) (2026)
- [MASPrism: Lightweight Failure Attribution for Multi-Agent Systems Using Prefill-Stage Signals](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.07509/) (2026)
- [Knowledge-Based Zero-Replay Debugging of Multi-Agent LLM Traces](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.14805/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Can Failed Trajectories Reveal Where Agents Go Wrong? Agentic Failure Attribution Without Step-Level Labels](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.13105/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Multi-agent LLM systems are increasingly deployed in real-world applications, where failures can be costly and difficult to localize. Despite growing efforts to automate failure attribution, diagnosing failed runs still largely relies on human engineers. Yet engineers rarely debug complex systems by reading raw logs end to end. Instead, observability tools organize traces around components, actions, and dependencies to support targeted navigation. We hypothesize that modern LLMs can benefit from the same paradigm. To test this hypothesis, we introduce Adaptive Influence Graphs (AIGs), a two-stage agentic framework that first transforms a failed trace into a structured graph and then navigates it to identify the critical error. Across multiple models, we show that richer trace representations consistently improve failure attribution, with adaptive graph construction and agent-directed traversal yielding the strongest results. AIGs establish a new state of the art on Who&When, the standard benchmark for multi-agent failure attribution. This affirms our hypothesis that attribution depends not only on the diagnosing model, but also on how the trace is represented and explored.