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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.32498 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.32498/

## 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 27 of its 37 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 26 Sep 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, 27 of 27)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [Voyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.16291/) (2023)
- [AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08155/) (2023)
- [DeepSeek-V4: Towards Highly Efficient Million-Token Context Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.19348/) (2026)
- [Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01798/) (2023)
- [DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into Self-Improving Pipelines](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03714/) (2023)
- [Semantic Uncertainty: Linguistic Invariances for Uncertainty Estimation in Natural Language Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.09664/) (2023)
- [Automatic Prompt Optimization with "Gradient Descent" and Beam Search](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.03495/) (2023)
- [τ2-Bench: Evaluating Conversational Agents in a Dual-Control Environment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.07982/) (2025)
- [Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.13657/) (2025)
- [Data Programming: Creating Large Training Sets, Quickly](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1605.07723/) (2016)
- [Which Agent Causes Task Failures and When? On Automated Failure Attribution of LLM Multi-Agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.00212/) (2025)
- [Where LLM Agents Fail and How They can Learn From Failures](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.25370/) (2025)
- [AgenTracer: Who Is Inducing Failure in the LLM Agentic Systems?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.03312/) (2025)
- [Fast and Three-rious: Speeding Up Weak Supervision with Triplet Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2002.11955/) (2020)
- [Seeing the Whole Elephant: A Benchmark for Failure Attribution in LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.22708/) (2026)
- [DoVer: Intervention-Driven Auto Debugging for LLM Multi-Agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.06749/) (2025)
- [Rethinking Failure Attribution in Multi-Agent Systems: A Multi-Perspective Benchmark and Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.25001/) (2026)
- [Causal Agent Replay: Counterfactual Attribution for LLM-Agent Failures](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.08275/) (2026)
- [From Flat Logs to Causal Graphs: Hierarchical Failure Attribution for LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.23701/) (2026)
- [CausalFlow: Causal Attribution and Counterfactual Repair for LLM Agent Failures](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.25338/) (2026)
- [AgentDebugX: An Open-Source Toolkit for Failure Observability, Attribution, and Recovery in LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.18754/) (2026)
- [Detecting Silent Failures in Multi-Agentic AI Trajectories](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.04032/) (2025)
- [Tracing Agentic Failure from the Flow of Success](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.12747/) (2026)
- [When Agents Disagree With Themselves: Behavioral Consistency as an Uncertainty Signal for LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.11619/) (2026)

## 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.