# Finding Where the Buck Stops: An Automated Failure Attribution-Based Reflection Framework for Multi-Agent Collaboration

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.28264 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.28264/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 22 of its 33 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 28 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, 22 of 22)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.06347/) (2017)
- [HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1809.09600/) (2018)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.11432/) (2023)
- [AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08155/) (2023)
- [Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14325/) (2023)
- [CAMEL: Communicative Agents for "Mind" Exploration of Large Language Model Society](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17760/) (2023)
- [Mind2Web: Towards a Generalist Agent for the Web](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.06070/) (2023)
- [Teaching Large Language Models to Self-Debug](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.05128/) (2023)
- [ChatDev: Communicative Agents for Software Development](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.07924/) (2023)
- [ExpeL: LLM Agents Are Experiential Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.10144/) (2023)
- [The Lessons of Developing Process Reward Models in Mathematical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.07301/) (2025)
- [AppWorld: A Controllable World of Apps and People for Benchmarking Interactive Coding Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.18901/) (2024)
- [MedAgents: Large Language Models as Collaborators for Zero-shot Medical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.10537/) (2023)
- [Magentic-One: A Generalist Multi-Agent System for Solving Complex Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.04468/) (2024)
- [Rethinking the Bounds of LLM Reasoning: Are Multi-Agent Discussions the Key?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.18272/) (2024)
- [Retroformer: Retrospective Large Language Agents with Policy Gradient Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.02151/) (2023)
- [ChartQAPro: A More Diverse and Challenging Benchmark for Chart Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.05506/) (2025)
- [PRMBench: A Fine-grained and Challenging Benchmark for Process-Level Reward Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.03124/) (2025)
- [Counterfactual Story Reasoning and Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.04076/) (2019)
- [Self-Contrast: Better Reflection Through Inconsistent Solving Perspectives](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.02009/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Multi-agent systems (MAS) powered by large language models have shown promise for complex tasks but suffer from high failure rates. Current self-reflection methods for MAS require all agents to reflect upon failure, overlooking a critical reality: failures typically stem from a specific agent leading the task astray, namely the decisive error agent, while others merely fulfill their regular duties. Forcing regular-behaving agents to reflect contaminates their memory with wrong insights. Hence, we propose DoCtOR (Diagnose-then-Correct PPO-enhanced Reflection), a novel reflection framework that enhances multi-agent collaboration. DoCtOR first identifies the decisive error step and decisive error agent through automated failure attribution, then employs counterfactual reasoning to generate a corrected decisive error step, and finally engages only the decisive error agent to produce targeted reflections. Experimental results show DoCtOR achieves 22%, 26%, and 27% improvements over initial success rates on HotPotQA, ChartQAPro, and Mind2Web datasets, outperforming Reflexion, Retroformer, and COPPER. We further establish the generalizability of our diagnose-then-correct paradigm and demonstrate that in low-resource settings, focusing reflection on reasoning steps after the decisive error step achieves comparable quality to reflecting on the complete failure trajectory.