Know the Shape, Find the Fault: Topology-Conditioned Diagnosis of Multi-Agent LLM Failures
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents also fits: Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
Multi-agent LLM systems coordinate task execution through exchanges of information among agents. When coordination breaks down, similar symptoms in execution traces can reflect different problems in how information is passed, used, or verified. Communication topology captures how agents exchange information and provides structural cues for distinguishing coordination failure modes. Using these cues for diagnosis requires establishing how topology relates to failure patterns and recovering the relevant structure from execution traces that lack explicit topology labels. We analyze the relationship between communication topology and failure patterns and introduce MAScope, a two-stage framework for topology-conditioned diagnosis. Its Trace Structural Extractor TSE recovers communication topology from heterogeneous execution traces by grounding an interaction graph in message evidence. The Topology-Conditioned Judge TC-Judge then classifies failures using the trace, predicted topology, an empirical failure prior estimated from separate labeled traces, and a short description of topology-specific failure patterns. Under a fixed orchestration structure, the recovered topology can be reused across executions. Experimental results show a statistically significant association between communication topology and failure type, with chi2 = 409.9 and p = 1.2 × 10-70. On the num851 MAST-clean traces, ground-truth topology context raises gpt-mini's Macro-F1 from 0.173 to 0.350. With predicted topology, the pipeline achieves 0.346, approaching the trace-only gpt-5.4 baseline of 0.372. For num1000 traces under a fixed orchestration structure, the projected pipeline cost, including one topology extraction, is approximately 6% of repeated gpt-5.4 diagnosis cost. These results show that topology-conditioned context improves failure diagnosis and supports lower-cost deployment.
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 7 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Oct 2026.
Builds on
7 of 40 references.
Closest ancestors · 5
Same direction, newest first
- 2026Who&When Pro: Can LLMs Really Attribute Failures in AI Agents?10 Jul
- 2026AgentRx: Diagnosing AI Agent Failures from Execution Trajectories2 Feb
- 2025Where Did It All Go Wrong? A Hierarchical Look into Multi-Agent Error Attribution6 Oct
- 2025Where LLM Agents Fail and How They can Learn From Failures29 Sep
- 2025Abduct, Act, Predict: Scaffolding Causal Inference for Automated Failure Attribution in Multi-Agent Systems12 Sep
Other references · 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Automata from Agent Traces: Failure and Next-Step Prediction
- 2026Adaptive Influence Graphs for Failure Attribution in Multi-Agent Systems
- 2026Who Broke the System? Failure Localization in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems
- 2026MAS-FIRE: Fault Injection and Reliability Evaluation for LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems
- 2026Predictive Maps of Multi-Agent Reasoning: A Successor-Representation Spectrum for LLM Communication Topologies
- 2026Counterfactual Graph for Multi-Agent LLM Calibration
- 2026ToMAS: A Pilot Failure-Grounded Theory-of-Mind Benchmark from Multi-Agent LLM Failures
- 2026VerifyMAS: Hypothesis Verification for Failure Attribution in LLM Multi-Agent Systems