Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 13 cited by

TRAIL: Trace Reasoning and Agentic Issue Localization

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Modern long-context LLMs are poor at debugging agent workflow traces: the best model scores 11% joint accuracy on TRAIL.

desk verdict TRAIL is a genuinely useful new benchmark for agentic trace debugging, but its headline 11% accuracy figure rests on an annotation quality claim the paper does not actually demonstrate. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08638 v3 pith:SSTT5BQ3 submitted 2025-05-13 cs.AI cs.CL

Darshan Deshpande , Varun Gangal , Hersh Mehta , Jitin Krishnan , Anand Kannappan , Rebecca Qian This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.CL
keywords agenticworkflowserrortaxonomytracedebuggingissuelocalizationLLM-as-a-judgelong-contextreasoningOpenTelemetrytracesAIevaluation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that evaluating agentic systems needs fine-grained trace analysis, not just end-to-end task success, and supplies the missing infrastructure: a formal taxonomy of agent failures and a human-annotated benchmark, TRAIL, of 148 OpenTelemetry-formatted traces from GAIA and SWE-Bench-Lite. On each trace, an LLM judge must find every error, name its category, and point to the exact span where it occurred. The paper reports that state-of-the-art long-context models do this poorly: Gemini-2.5-Pro, the best tested, reaches 18% joint accuracy on the GAIA split and 5% on the SWE-Bench split, for a combined 11%, and three of eight models cannot even fit the full trace in context. If this result holds, current LLMs cannot reliably audit or debug the agentic workflows they are increasingly asked to operate, making TRAIL a concrete target for improving trace reasoning.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the TRAIL error taxonomy—a three-branch hierarchy covering Reasoning Errors, System Execution Errors, and Planning and Coordination Errors, with leaf categories such as Formatting Errors, Tool Selection Errors, Rate Limiting, Context Handling Failures, and Task Orchestration—paired with a span-level annotation task in which every error must be assigned to an OpenTelemetry span ID. A model's answer is jointly accurate only when the predicted category and the predicted span location both match the human annotation. The taxonomy converts vague impressions of agent failure into a reproducible scoring target, while the span-location requirement forces the judge to localize, not just diagnose, each failure.

What would settle it

Re-annotate a random sample of TRAIL traces with an independent team using the same taxonomy and measure agreement on category-plus-span; if agreement is low, the ground truth is too unstable to support the 11% figure. Alternatively, give models a multiple-choice version with the same spans and categories; a large score jump would show the bottleneck is output format, not trace-debugging skill.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

TRAIL is a benchmark for trace-level evaluation of agentic systems. It pairs a three-branch taxonomy of agentic errors—reasoning errors, system execution errors, and planning and coordination errors—with 148 expert-annotated execution traces totaling 1,987 OpenTelemetry spans, of which 575 contain at least one of the 841 annotated errors, drawn from GAIA and SWE-Bench-Lite. The evaluation task is to take a raw trace and output, for every error, its fine-grained category, the span ID where it occurs, evidence, description, and impact level, plus rubric scores for reliability, security, instruction adherence, and plan optimality. Under this protocol, the authors find current models fall far short of human-level trace debugging: Gemini-2.5-Pro achieves 11% combined joint accuracy, model rankings on TRAIL largely track long-context leaderboards, performance degrades with input length, and higher reasoning effort improves scores.

Load-bearing premise

The human-annotated labels are accurate and consistent enough to serve as ground truth; if the labels are noisy or the taxonomy categories are ambiguous, the model rankings and the headline 11% figure could change materially.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • No tested model exceeds 11% joint accuracy, so relying on any current LLM judge for agentic trace debugging would misclassify or miss the majority of errors.
  • Three of the eight evaluated models cannot process the full trace within their context window, meaning trace length itself is a bottleneck for trace reasoning.
  • Raising reasoning effort improves trace-debugging scores, so test-time reasoning is a lever for better agent evaluation.
  • The error taxonomy supplies a shared vocabulary for reporting agent failures, making evaluations more actionable than end-to-end success rates.
  • The dataset and protocol can serve as a target for training and tuning models specifically for trace reasoning and issue localization.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: if the taxonomy's categories overlap in practice, exact-match joint accuracy may understate models' ability to localize the right span; a hierarchical or partial-credit metric could produce a different ranking.
  • Beyond the paper: because errors were partly induced through prompt constraints, TRAIL's error mix may not match naturally occurring agent failures, so transfer to production logs is untested.
  • Beyond the paper: the same span-level protocol could extend to multimodal traces and to streaming observability data, where finding the failing component in a live trace is an operational need.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces TRAIL, a benchmark of 148 (or 149, see major comments) human-annotated OpenTelemetry traces drawn from GAIA and SWE-Bench Lite, together with a hierarchical taxonomy of agentic errors spanning reasoning, system execution, and planning/coordination. The authors evaluate eight long-context LLMs as trace judges, asking them to localize error spans and classify error categories, and report that the best model (Gemini-2.5-Pro) achieves only 11% combined joint accuracy (18% on GAIA, 5% on SWE-Bench). They also study how input length, reasoning effort, and model family affect performance, and release the dataset and code publicly.

Significance. If the central result holds, the paper makes a useful contribution: it provides a publicly available, ecologically grounded trace-level benchmark with a fine-grained taxonomy, and it documents a consistent and striking failure of current LLMs at structured trace debugging. The strength of the paper is that the main finding is empirical and not circular: ground truth comes from human annotation, the evaluated models are not used to construct labels, and no parameters are fitted to produce the 11% figure. The reasoning-effort ablation and the analysis of context-length limits are also valuable. However, the benchmark's credibility rests on ground-truth reliability and on reproducible dataset statistics, and both are currently under-supported. The taxonomies and the public release are likely to be useful to the agent-evaluation community once these issues are addressed.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, §A.7] The claim of 'high inter-annotator agreement' is not supported by the reported statistics. §A.7 states only that 5.63% of SWE-Bench spans and 5.31% of GAIA spans were modified after a consensus verification pass, which is a post-hoc modification rate, not an agreement coefficient between independent annotators. Please report per-annotator agreement (e.g., Cohen's kappa or Krippendorff's alpha) for error category, span location, and impact, and clarify whether annotations were produced independently before the consensus rounds. Without this, the gold labels and the 11%/18%/5% headline numbers are not anchored to a demonstrably stable ground truth.
  2. [Abstract, §4, Table 5] The dataset counts are internally inconsistent. The abstract and §4 say 148 traces and 841 errors, but Table 5 lists 118 GAIA + 31 SWE-Bench = 149 traces and 579 + 256 = 835 errors; §4.3 further says errors were found in 114 GAIA and 30 SWE-Bench traces. Please reconcile these numbers and state exactly which files constitute the released benchmark, since the reported error totals are used to compute F1 and joint accuracy.
  3. [§5, Table 1, abstract] The headline '11% combined joint accuracy' is not reproducible from the reported per-split joint accuracies. Gemini-2.5-Pro achieves 0.183 on GAIA and 0.050 on SWE-Bench; weighting by the trace counts in Table 5 gives roughly 14–15%, not 11%. Please define the combined metric precisely and report the exact computation, or the central claim of the abstract cannot be verified.
  4. [§5, Table 1, §A.3] The evaluation reports averages of three runs without variance, confidence intervals, or significance tests, and the paper includes no human-expert baseline on the benchmark task. Since the central claim is that 11% is 'poor', the absence of a human ceiling and of uncertainty estimates leaves the model rankings and the difficulty claim uncalibrated. Please add per-run variation (or confidence intervals) and at least a small human-expert evaluation on a subset of traces.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3 and Figure 3] The text in §3 refers to 'Figure 3' when summarizing the taxonomy, but Figure 3 is captioned 'TRAIL Dataset Statistics'; the taxonomy diagram appears in Figure 1. Please correct the cross-reference.
  2. [Table 6] The Security correlation is reported as 1.00 for every model on both splits, which suggests the human security scores are constant; please report the underlying score distributions or remove the row if it is uninformative.
  3. [§A.7] The phrase 'four independent verification rounds' is ambiguous; if the same annotators revised labels after seeing other annotators' judgments, these are not independent measurements and should be described as consensus rounds.
  4. [Table 3] The correlation table reports Pearson and Spearman coefficients without p-values or confidence intervals; given the modest number of traces, please add uncertainty estimates or significance levels.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: TRAIL's central result is an independent empirical measurement against fixed human-annotated labels.

full rationale

The central claim is that LLMs score only 11% combined joint accuracy on TRAIL. That number is produced by running external models on fixed traces and comparing their outputs with human-authored gold labels; no model output is used to construct the labels, and no parameter is fitted so that the evaluated models reproduce the benchmark result. The taxonomy and annotation rubric are defined before evaluation and do not depend on the evaluated models' predictions, so there is no self-definitional loop. The paper's self-citations (e.g., Deshpande et al. 2024a,b and the Patronus AI blog entry) appear only in related-work motivation and do not supply any load-bearing premise, uniqueness claim, or fitted ansatz for the benchmark or the 11% result. The evaluation is also externally grounded in traces drawn from GAIA and SWE-Bench, and the benchmark's difficulty is reported as measured, not derived from those benchmarks' own scores. Two concerns in the manuscript are real but are not circularity: Section 4.2 asserts high inter-annotator agreement while Appendix A.7 reports only post-hoc span-modification rates rather than an agreement coefficient, and the error counts are internally inconsistent (841 in the text versus 835 in Table 5; 114+30 versus 118+31 traces). These are gold-standard reliability and reproducibility issues that could affect the validity of the 11% figure, but they do not make the derivation equivalent to its own inputs. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a dataset paper, so the ledger contains domain assumptions rather than fitted parameters or invented physical entities. The main assumptions are the reliability of human annotations, the completeness of the taxonomy, and the representativeness of the two agent setups.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Human annotations are correct ground truth for the error labels and locations.
    The evaluation is scored against these gold labels; §4.2 asserts agreement but §A.7 only gives revision percentages, not a kappa-style statistic.
  • domain assumption The taxonomy's leaf categories are exhaustive and mutually exclusive for the traces in the dataset.
    The prompt forces models to choose exactly one final subcategory; if a true error belongs to no leaf or to multiple leaves, model outputs are penalized regardless of reasoning quality. Taxonomy defined in §3 and prompt in §A.11.
  • domain assumption Traces from OpenDeepResearch (o3-mini) on GAIA and CodeAct (Claude-3.7-sonnet) on SWE-Bench are representative enough to establish ecological validity.
    Only these two orchestration stacks were used (§4.1); the error distribution may not generalize to other agent frameworks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TRAIL: Trace Reasoning and Agentic Issue Localization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SSTT5BQ3

@misc{pith2026250508638,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TRAIL: Trace Reasoning and Agentic Issue Localization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SSTT5BQ3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08638}
}
read the original abstract

The increasing adoption of agentic workflows across diverse domains brings a critical need to scalably and systematically evaluate the complex traces these systems generate. Current evaluation methods depend on manual, domain-specific human analysis of lengthy workflow traces - an approach that does not scale with the growing complexity and volume of agentic outputs. Error analysis in these settings is further complicated by the interplay of external tool outputs and language model reasoning, making it more challenging than traditional software debugging. In this work, we (1) articulate the need for robust and dynamic evaluation methods for agentic workflow traces, (2) introduce a formal taxonomy of error types encountered in agentic systems, and (3) present a set of 148 large human-annotated traces (TRAIL) constructed using this taxonomy and grounded in established agentic benchmarks. To ensure ecological validity, we curate traces from both single and multi-agent systems, focusing on real-world applications such as software engineering and open-world information retrieval. Our evaluations reveal that modern long context LLMs perform poorly at trace debugging, with the best Gemini-2.5-pro model scoring a mere 11% on TRAIL. Our dataset and code are made publicly available to support and accelerate future research in scalable evaluation for agentic workflows.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.08638 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the TRAIL taxonomy of errors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. TRAIL trace’s span structure and error examples [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. TRAIL Dataset Statistics Agent Orchestration Liu et al. (2023b) first presented a standardized hierarchical method of orchestrating agents, derivatives of which are ac￾tively adopted by several works (Zhao et al., 2024, 2025). We closely follow this hierarchical structure and adopt the Hugging Face OpenDeepResearch agent (Hugging Face, 2024) for creating traces for the GAIA benchmark. We select the state-of-the￾art … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Heatmap for Error Category F1 across models; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Input Token Length Distributions (plotted in logscale) across TRAIL tasks w.r.t two different models for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Search agent orchestration for GAIA dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 13 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Fantastic Adaptive Taxonomies and How to Use Them

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    AdaMAST induces a compact, evidence-grounded failure taxonomy from an agent's own traces and shows it improves agent-system search, runtime reflection, and trajectory selection over free-text and fixed-taxonomy baselines.

  2. Diagnosis-Driven Automatic Repair for Agentic Workflow via Symbolic Inference

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    FlowFixer uses symbolic inference of node behavioral specs to diagnose and repair agentic workflows, reaching 71.3% repair success and higher attribution accuracy than baselines on Dify/Coze/n8n failures.

  3. AgentChaos: Chaos Engineering for Agent Systems via Programmatic Fault Injection

    cs.SE 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An HTTP-layer fault injection framework shows that LLM API faults can cut agent task success by up to 50 percentage points, and current diagnosis methods stay below 56% accuracy.

  4. Online Monitoring and Corrective Steering of Programming Agents

    cs.SE 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A deterministic rule-based monitor that detects coding-agent drift, paired with an LLM advisor called only when needed, raises SWE-agent issue resolution rates by up to 15.2 percentage points at about $0.08 extra per task.

  5. TRAJDEBUG: Tracing Error Lifecycle to Identify Critical Failures in Long-Horizon Agent Trajectories

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A three-stage error-lifecycle tracing framework localizes the earliest failure-responsible step in long agent trajectories and outperforms prior debuggers on a new 486-trajectory benchmark.

  6. SkillTV-Bench: Benchmarking How Well Judges Perform on Skill-Augmented Agentic Execution

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SkillTV-Bench provides a multi-domain, skill-aware trajectory verification benchmark, and SkillTV-Evolve's evolved JudgeSkill improves an agent judge's accuracy by 14.8 points on a held-out set.

  7. AgentTrails: Towards Trust and Reuse for Agentic Tasks

    cs.DB 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    AgentTrails reconstructs provenance graphs from raw agent logs and aligns multiple executions into a joined graph that exposes shared workflows and divergent branches.

  8. AgentDebugX: An Open-Source Toolkit for Failure Observability, Attribution, and Recovery in LLM Agents

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An open-source agent-debugging loop attributes failures to the responsible step and uses the diagnosis to repair failed runs, recovering 13 of 73 GAIA tasks.

  9. DeepStress: Stress-Testing Deep Search Agents

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A controlled synthetic-retrieval stress test shows that AI search agents differ greatly in handling untrustworthy, irrelevant, or false documents, and that HotpotQA is partly answerable from parametric knowledge alone.

  10. What Resolve Rate Hides: Trajectory Structure Diagnostics for Coding Agents

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    TraceProbe normalizes coding agent trajectories into canonical actions and applies rule-based detectors to localize failure patterns and behavioral divergences that resolve rate hides.

  11. TrajAudit: Automated Failure Diagnosis for Agentic Coding Systems

    cs.SE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    TrajAudit pinpoints the earliest wrong step in long AI-coding-agent logs with 50.9% exact accuracy on the new RootSE benchmark, beating prior methods by about 24 percentage points.

  12. Adversarial Attacks in Multi-Agent LLM Pipelines: Unveiling Structural Vulnerabilities in Agentic AI Architectures

    cs.CR 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The paper argues that multi-agent LLM pipelines are vulnerable because inter-agent boundaries lack verification, and claims that attack success is an architectural property rather than a model property.

  13. Automatic Failure Attribution and Critical Step Prediction Method for Multi-Agent Systems Based on Causal Inference

    cs.AI 2025-09 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    A hierarchical causal attribution framework (performance causal inversion, Shapley values, CDC-MAS step discovery) localizes failure agents and steps in LLM multi-agent systems, reporting up to 36.2% step accuracy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 13 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Always provide a ’Thought:’ sequence, and a ’ Code:\n‘‘‘py’ sequence ending with ’‘‘‘< end_code>’ sequence, else you will fail

    work page

  2. [2]

    Use only variables that you have defined!

  3. [3]

    What is the place where James Bond lives?

    Always use the right arguments for the tools. DO NOT pass the arguments as a dict as in ’ answer = wiki({’query’: "What is the place where James Bond lives?"})’, but use the arguments directly as in ’answer = wiki( query="What is the place where James Bond lives?")’

    work page

  4. [4]

    Take care to not chain too many sequential tool calls in the same code block, especially when the output format is unpredictable. For instance, a call to search has an unpredictable return format, so do not have another tool call that depends on its output in the same block: rather output results with print() to use them in the next block

  5. [5]

    Yuan Sui, Mengyu Zhou, Mingjie Zhou, Shi Han, and Dongmei Zhang

    Bright: A realistic and challenging benchmark for reasoning-intensive retrieval. Yuan Sui, Mengyu Zhou, Mingjie Zhou, Shi Han, and Dongmei Zhang. 2024. Table meets llm: Can large language models understand structured table data? a benchmark and empirical study. In WSDM ’24: Pro- ceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mini...

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.19314

    Livebench: A challenging, contamination-free llm benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.19314. Shirley Wu, Shiyu Zhao, Michihiro Yasunaga, Kexin Huang, Kaidi Cao, Qian Huang, Vassilis Ioannidis, Karthik Subbian, James Y Zou, and Jure Leskovec

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:127129–127153

    Stark: Benchmarking llm retrieval on textual and relational knowledge bases. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:127129–127153. Chunqiu Steven Xia, Yinlin Deng, Soren Dunn, and Lingming Zhang. 2024. Agentless: Demystify- ing llm-based software engineering agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.01489. Austin Xu, Srijan Bansal, Yifei Ming, Semi...

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.16090

    Epo: Hierarchical llm agents with envi- ronment preference optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.16090. Yong Zhao, Kai Xu, Zhengqiu Zhu, Yue Hu, Zhiheng Zheng, Yingfeng Chen, Yatai Ji, Chen Gao, Yong Li, and Jincai Huang. 2025. Cityeqa: A hierarchical llm agent on embodied question answering benchmark in city space. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12532. Lian...

    arXiv 2025

Show all 20 references
  1. [9]

    In Proceedings of the Inter- national Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    Judgelm: Fine-tuned large language models are scalable judges. In Proceedings of the Inter- national Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). Spotlight. Mingchen Zhuge, Changsheng Zhao, Dylan Ashley, Wenyi Wang, Dmitrii Khizbullin, Yunyang Xiong, Zechun Liu, Ernie Chang,...

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    low" to

    due to their long context length and good rea- soning support. We use Together AI as the provider for testing Llama-4 models. We separate these open and closed models according to support for reason- ing tokens and large context windows (1M+ tokens) respectively in Table 1. Th...

    2019

  3. [15]

    Call a tool only when needed, and never re-do a tool call that you previously did with the exact same parameters

  4. [16]

    Don’t name any new variable with the same name as a tool: for instance don’t name a variable ’final_answer’

  5. [17]

    Never create any notional variables in our code, as having these in your logs will derail you from the true variables

  6. [18]

    You can use imports in your code, but only from the following list of modules: [’ asyncio’, ’collections’, ’csv’, ’datetime’, ’gitingest’, ’io’, ’itertools’, ’json’, ’ math’, ’os’, ’pandas’, ’queue’, ’random’, ’ re’, ’requests’, ’stat’, ’statistics’, ’sys ’, ’time’, ’unicodedata’]

  7. [19]

    The state persists between code executions: so if in one step you’ve created variables or imported modules, these will all persist

  8. [20]

    https://github.com/pydicom/ pydicom/commit/49 a3da4a3d9c24d7e8427a25048a1c7d5c4f7724

    Don’t give up! You’re in charge of solving the task, not providing directions to solve it. Now Begin! If you solve the task correctly, you will receive a reward of \$1,000,000. A.12.2 Task prompt New task: You will be provided with a partial code base and an issue statement ex...

  9. [2020]

    we need structured output

    BLEU might be guilty but references are not innocent. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Process- ing (EMNLP), pages 61–71, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xiaohan Fu, Shuheng Li, Zihan Wang, Yihao Liu, Ra- jesh K ...

    2020 arXiv

  10. [2023]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12983

    Gaia: a benchmark for general ai assistants. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12983. Ivan Milev, Mislav Balunovi´c, Maximilian Baader, and Martin Vechev. 2025. Toolfuzz–automated agent tool testing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.04479. Dany Moshkovich, Hadar Mulian, Sergey Zeltyn, Natti ...

    2025 arXiv

  11. [2024]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.06992

    Swe-bench+: Enhanced coding benchmark for llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.06992. Anthropic. 2025. Claude 3.7 sonnet. https://www. anthropic.com/news/claude-3-7-sonnet . Ac- cessed: May 9, 2025. Anthropic. 2025. Model context protocol: Transparency and control for ai inputs and...

    2025 arXiv

  12. [2025]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.02068

    Interactive debugging and steering of multi- agent ai systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.02068. Ficlive. 2025. Fiction.livebench (april 6, 2025). https://fiction.live/ stories/Fiction-livebench-April6-2025/ oQdzQvKHw8JyXbN87. Accessed: 2025-05-12. Markus Freitag, David Grangie...

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.