mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

DAAF: From Failure Localization to Editable System Assets in LLM Agents

arXiv 2609.32498 ↗First posted 26 Sep 2026cs.AIcited by 0

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Deployed LLM agents increasingly rely on persistent, versioned system assets such as routing rules, knowledge segments, prompt instructions, and reusable skills. Failure-localization methods can identify where an error manifests in an agent or execution trace, but repair requires a different decision: which editable system asset should be changed, and is that change expected to improve the task outcome? We study this gap through component-attribute failure attribution, where diagnosis targets versioned, addressable items rather than execution locations. We propose the Detection-Aware Attribution Framework (DAAF), which learns the effects of valid attribute replacements and amortizes this intervention evidence into deployment-time diagnosis. DAAF combines sparse and noisy failure signals to decide whether intervention is warranted, learns component-type-conditioned replacement effects from controlled replays evaluated by executable task outcomes, and shares supervision across requests with compatible intervention responses. At diagnosis time, DAAF uses only the observed execution, registered candidates, and available failure signals; it requires neither counterfactual replay nor task reward and returns no_change, a repair target, or an unresolved decision when evidence is insufficient. On held-out tau^2-bench Telecom tasks, DAAF achieves 80.72% attribute Hit@1, recovers 62.65% of failed executions while limiting clean-task regression to 3.23%, and reaches 71.93% overall task success. These results show that intervention-grounded attribute attribution can connect failure localization to executable system repair.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 27 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Sep 2026.

Builds on

27 of 37 references.

Closest ancestors · 14

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026AgentDebugX: An Open-Source Toolkit for Failure Observability, Attribution, and Recovery in LLM Agents21 Jul
  2. 2026Tracing Agentic Failure from the Flow of Success14 Jul
  3. 2026Causal Agent Replay: Counterfactual Attribution for LLM-Agent Failures6 Jun
  4. 2026CausalFlow: Causal Attribution and Counterfactual Repair for LLM Agent Failures25 May
  5. 2026Seeing the Whole Elephant: A Benchmark for Failure Attribution in LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems24 Apr
  6. 2026Rethinking Failure Attribution in Multi-Agent Systems: A Multi-Perspective Benchmark and Evaluation26 Mar
  7. 2026From Flat Logs to Causal Graphs: Hierarchical Failure Attribution for LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems27 Feb
  8. 2025DoVer: Intervention-Driven Auto Debugging for LLM Multi-Agent Systems7 Dec
  9. 2025Detecting Silent Failures in Multi-Agentic AI Trajectories6 Nov
  10. 2025Where LLM Agents Fail and How They can Learn From Failures29 Sep
  11. 2025AgenTracer: Who Is Inducing Failure in the LLM Agentic Systems?3 Sep
  12. 2025Which Agent Causes Task Failures and When? On Automated Failure Attribution of LLM Multi-Agent Systems30 Apr
2 more
  1. 2025Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?17 Mar
  2. 2023AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation16 Aug

Other references · 13

  1. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
  2. 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,064
  3. 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,317
  4. 2023Voyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Modelscited by 2,081
  5. 2023Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yetcited by 965
  6. 2026DeepSeek-V4: Towards Highly Efficient Million-Token Context Intelligencecited by 877
  7. 2023DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into Self-Improving Pipelinescited by 803
  8. 2023Semantic Uncertainty: Linguistic Invariances for Uncertainty Estimation in Natural Language Generationcited by 795
  9. 2023Automatic Prompt Optimization with "Gradient Descent" and Beam Searchcited by 628
  10. 2025τ2-Bench: Evaluating Conversational Agents in a Dual-Control Environmentcited by 558
  11. 2016Data Programming: Creating Large Training Sets, Quicklycited by 246
  12. 2020Fast and Three-rious: Speeding Up Weak Supervision with Triplet Methodscited by 98
1 more
  1. 2026When Agents Disagree With Themselves: Behavioral Consistency as an Uncertainty Signal for LLM Agentscited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026DeFA: Dependency-Guided Failure Attribution for LLM Agents
  2. 2026FALAT: Tracing Failures in LLM Agent Trajectories via Dependency-Guided Search
  3. 2026Sentry: Learning to Recover from LLM Agent Failures at Test Time
  4. 2026AgentFixer: From Failure Detection to Fix Recommendations in LLM Agentic Systems
  5. 2026ParaRecover: A Process-Level Benchmark for Error Localization and Recovery in Parallel Tool-Use Agents
  6. 2026Adaptive Influence Graphs for Failure Attribution in Multi-Agent Systems
  7. 2026REFLECT: Intervention-Supported Error Attribution for Silent Failures in LLM Agent Traces
  8. 2026AgentRx: Diagnosing AI Agent Failures from Execution Trajectories