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

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.13143v1
• Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2025 17:55:22 GMT
• Title: Exploring Autonomous Agents: A Closer Look at Why They Fail When Completing Tasks
• Authors: Ruofan Lu, Yichen Li, Yintong Huo,
• Abstract summary: We present a benchmark of 34 representative programmable tasks designed to rigorously assess autonomous agents.<n>We evaluate three popular open-source agent frameworks combined with two LLM backbones, observing a task completion rate of approximately 50%.<n>We develop a three-tier taxonomy of failure causes aligned with task phases, highlighting planning errors, task execution issues, and incorrect response generation.
• Score: 8.218266805768687
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• 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.

Related papers

• MAS-FIRE: Fault Injection and Reliability Evaluation for LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems [38.44649280816596]
  We propose MAS-FIRE, a systematic framework for fault injection and reliability evaluation of Multi-Agent Systems.<n>We define a taxonomy of 15 fault types covering intra-agent cognitive errors and inter-agent coordination failures.<n>Applying MAS-FIRE to three representative MAS architectures, we uncover a rich set of fault-tolerant behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-23T13:47:43Z)
• Why Do AI Agents Systematically Fail at Cloud Root Cause Analysis? [1.0966260566122241]
  Failures in large-scale cloud systems incur substantial financial losses.<n>Recent efforts leverage Large Language Model (LLM) agents to automate Root Cause Analysis (RCA)<n>This paper presents a process level failure analysis of LLM-based RCA agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-10T16:14:05Z)
• What Do LLM Agents Know About Their World? Task2Quiz: A Paradigm for Studying Environment Understanding [50.35012849818872]
  Large language model (LLM) agents have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in complex decision-making and tool-use tasks.<n>We propose Task-to-Quiz (T2Q), a deterministic and automated evaluation paradigm designed to decouple task execution from world-state understanding.<n>Our experiments reveal that task success is often a poor proxy for environment understanding, and that current memory machanism can not effectively help agents acquire a grounded model of the environment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-14T14:09:11Z)
• Beyond Task Completion: An Assessment Framework for Evaluating Agentic AI Systems [0.0]
  Recent advances in agentic AI have shifted the focus from standalone Large Language Models to integrated systems.<n>We propose an end-to-end Agent Assessment Framework with four evaluation pillars encompassing LLMs, Memory, Tools, and Environment.<n>We validate the framework on a representative Autonomous CloudOps use case, where experiments reveal behavioral deviations by conventional metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-14T18:17:40Z)
• A Survey of Data Agents: Emerging Paradigm or Overstated Hype? [66.1526688475023]
  "Data agent" currently suffers from terminological ambiguity and inconsistent adoption.<n>This survey introduces the first systematic hierarchical taxonomy for data agents.<n>We conclude with a forward-looking roadmap, envisioning the advent of proactive, generative data agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-27T17:54:07Z)
• Towards Self-Evolving Benchmarks: Synthesizing Agent Trajectories via Test-Time Exploration under Validate-by-Reproduce Paradigm [60.36837655498119]
  We propose a Trajectory-based validated-by-Reproducing Agent-benchmark Complexity Evolution framework.<n>This framework takes an original task from an existing benchmark and encourages agents to evolve it into a new task with higher difficulty.<n>Experiments on the GAIA benchmark demonstrate that the TRACE framework consistently enhances task complexity while improving the reliability of correctness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-01T01:52:52Z)
• An Empirical Study on Failures in Automated Issue Solving [12.571536148821144]
  We analyze the performance and efficiency of three SOTA tools, spanning both pipeline-based and agentic architectures, in automated issue solving tasks of SWE-Bench-Verified.<n>To move from high-level performance metrics to underlying cause analysis, we conducted a systematic manual analysis of 150 failed instances.<n>The results reveal distinct failure fingerprints between the two architectural paradigms, with the majority of agentic failures stemming from flawed reasoning and cognitive deadlocks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-17T13:07:52Z)
• From MAS to MARS: Coordination Failures and Reasoning Trade-offs in Hierarchical Multi-Agent Robotic Systems within a Healthcare Scenario [3.5262044630932254]
  Multi-agent robotic systems (MARS) build upon multi-agent systems by integrating physical and task-related constraints.<n>Despite the availability of advanced multi-agent frameworks, their real-world deployment on robots remains limited.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-06T17:54:10Z)
• Which Agent Causes Task Failures and When? On Automated Failure Attribution of LLM Multi-Agent Systems [50.29939179830491]
  Failure attribution in LLM multi-agent systems remains underexplored and labor-intensive.<n>We develop and evaluate three automated failure attribution methods, summarizing their corresponding pros and cons.<n>The best method achieves 53.5% accuracy in identifying failure-responsible agents but only 14.2% in pinpointing failure steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-30T23:09:44Z)
• Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail? [91.39266556855513]
  We present MAST (Multi-Agent System Failure taxonomy), the first empirically grounded taxonomy designed to understand MAS failures.<n>We analyze seven popular MAS frameworks across over 200 tasks, involving six expert human annotators.<n>We identify 14 unique failure modes, organized into 3 overarching categories, (i) specification issues, (ii) inter-agent misalignment, and (iii) task verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-17T19:04:38Z)
• Agent-as-a-Judge: Evaluate Agents with Agents [61.33974108405561]
  We introduce the Agent-as-a-Judge framework, wherein agentic systems are used to evaluate agentic systems. This is an organic extension of the LLM-as-a-Judge framework, incorporating agentic features that enable intermediate feedback for the entire task-solving process. We present DevAI, a new benchmark of 55 realistic automated AI development tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T17:57:02Z)
• SUPER: Evaluating Agents on Setting Up and Executing Tasks from Research Repositories [55.161075901665946]
  Super aims to capture the realistic challenges faced by researchers working with Machine Learning (ML) and Natural Language Processing (NLP) research repositories. Our benchmark comprises three distinct problem sets: 45 end-to-end problems with annotated expert solutions, 152 sub problems derived from the expert set that focus on specific challenges, and 602 automatically generated problems for larger-scale development. We show that state-of-the-art approaches struggle to solve these problems with the best model (GPT-4o) solving only 16.3% of the end-to-end set, and 46.1% of the scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-11T17:37:48Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.