Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 cited by

Exploring Autonomous Agents: A Closer Look at Why They Fail When Completing Tasks

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2508.13143 v1 pith:N5BEKJMH submitted 2025-08-18 cs.AI cs.SE

classification cs.AIcs.SE
keywords agentautonomousfailuresystemstasktasksagentsbenchmark
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Autonomous agent systems powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities in automating complex tasks. However, current evaluations largely rely on success rates without systematically analyzing the interactions, communication mechanisms, and failure causes within these systems. To bridge this gap, we present a benchmark of 34 representative programmable tasks designed to rigorously assess autonomous agents. Using this benchmark, we evaluate three popular open-source agent frameworks combined with two LLM backbones, observing a task completion rate of approximately 50%. Through in-depth failure analysis, we develop a three-tier taxonomy of failure causes aligned with task phases, highlighting planning errors, task execution issues, and incorrect response generation. Based on these insights, we propose actionable improvements to enhance agent planning and self-diagnosis capabilities. Our failure taxonomy, together with mitigation advice, provides an empirical foundation for developing more robust and effective autonomous agent systems in the future.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. Failure as a Process: An Anatomy of CLI Coding Agent Trajectories

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Across 1,794 CLI agent trajectories, failures are mostly epistemic, start by median step 7, and often stay silent until after lock-in.

  2. Inference-Time Budget Control for LLM Search Agents

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    A VOI-based controller for dual inference budgets improves multi-hop QA performance by prioritizing search actions and selectively finalizing answers.

  3. When Agents Look the Same: Quantifying Distillation-Induced Similarity in Tool-Use Behaviors

    cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    New RPS and AGS metrics show within-family distilled LLM agents have 5.9 pp higher tool-use graph similarity than cross-family pairs, with some models exceeding their teachers.

  4. Profile-Then-Reason: Bounded Semantic Complexity for Tool-Augmented Language Agents

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    PTR framework profiles a workflow upfront then executes it deterministically with bounded verification and repair, limiting LM calls to 2-3 while outperforming ReAct in 16 of 24 tested configurations.

  5. When Planning Fails Despite Correct Execution: On Epistemic Calibration for LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Introduces EPC-AW to mitigate epistemic miscalibration in LLM multi-agent planning via consistency-based selection and refinement, reporting 9.75% average success improvement.

  6. Characterizing Faults in Agentic AI: A Taxonomy of Types, Symptoms, and Root Causes

    cs.SE 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    An empirical study of real-world issues yields a taxonomy of 34 fault types, symptoms, and root causes in agentic AI systems, validated by 145 practitioners.

Pith tools