Explaining AI Agents Through Execution Traces
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
AI Agents are increasingly deployed in real-world settings, where they interact with external tools and make sequential decisions with limited human oversight. This creates a pressing need for reliable and auditable explanations of what an agent did and why. However, traditional Explainable AI (XAI) methods fall short of providing the process-level transparency required for such interactive, multi-step systems, motivating a paradigm shift toward approaches specifically designed for AI Agents. To address this gap, we present a post-hoc XAI framework that transforms a lengthy agent's execution trace into a structured report and a faithful natural-language explanation explicitly grounded in its observable behavior. Because it relies solely on execution traces, the framework applies across different agent architectures, environments, and tasks. Human and automated evaluations across multiple benchmarks and architectures show that our framework produces high-quality, trace-faithful explanations while reliably identifying unsupported claims, unjustified actions, and evidence gaps, outperforming naive LLM-generated explanations.
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 14 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Sep 2026.
Builds on
14 of 21 references.
Closest ancestors · 5
Same direction, newest first
- 2026Willful Disobedience: Automatically Detecting Failures in Agentic Traces25 Mar
- 2026Characterizing Faults in Agentic AI: A Taxonomy of Types, Symptoms, and Root Causes6 Mar
- 2026AgentFixer: From Failure Detection to Fix Recommendations in LLM Agentic Systems18 Feb
- 2026From Features to Actions: Explainability in Traditional and Agentic AI Systems6 Feb
- 2025TRAIL: Trace Reasoning and Agentic Issue Localization13 May
Other references · 9
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
- 2018HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answeringcited by 3,754
- 2023GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistantscited by 1,128
- 2026Ask, Don't Judge: Binary Questions for Interpretable LLM Evaluation and Self-Improvementcited by 5
- 2026An Agentic Approach to Generating XAI-Narrativescited by 4
- 2026Responsible Agentic AI Requires Explicit Provenancecited by 3
- 2026PONTE: Personalized Orchestration for Natural Language Trustworthy Explanationscited by 1
- 2026MATRAG: Multi-Agent Transparent Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Explainable Recommendationscited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026XAI for Coding Agent Failures: Transforming Raw Execution Traces into Actionable Insights
- 2026TraceSIR: A Multi-Agent Framework for Structured Analysis and Reporting of Agentic Execution Traces
- 2026Position: Explainability Research Must Prioritize Foundations over Ad-hoc Methods
- 2026Overseeing Agents Without Constant Oversight: Challenges and Opportunities
- 2026Reasoning Provenance for Autonomous AI Agents: Structured Behavioral Analytics Beyond State Checkpoints and Execution Traces
- 2025Towards Responsible and Explainable AI Agents with Consensus-Driven Reasoning
- 2026Towards Faithful Agentic XAI: A Verification Method and an Open-World Benchmark for Better Model Faithfulness
- 2026From Agent Traces to Trust: A Survey of Evidence Tracing and Execution Provenance in LLM Agents