An Empirical Study on Failures in Automated Issue Solving

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.13941v1
• Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2025 13:07:52 GMT
• Title: An Empirical Study on Failures in Automated Issue Solving
• Authors: Simiao Liu, Fang Liu, Liehao Li, Xin Tan, Yinghao Zhu, Xiaoli Lian, Li Zhang,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 12.571536148821144
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Automated issue solving seeks to autonomously identify and repair defective code snippets across an entire codebase. SWE-Bench has emerged as the most widely adopted benchmark for evaluating progress in this area. While LLM-based agentic tools show great promise, they still fail on a substantial portion of tasks. Moreover, current evaluations primarily report aggregate issue-solving rates, which obscure the underlying causes of success and failure, making it challenging to diagnose model weaknesses or guide targeted improvements. To bridge this gap, we first 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 under varying task characteristics. Furthermore, to move from high-level performance metrics to underlying cause analysis, we conducted a systematic manual analysis of 150 failed instances. From this analysis, we developed a comprehensive taxonomy of failure modes comprising 3 primary phases, 9 main categories, and 25 fine-grained subcategories. Then we systematically analyze the distribution of the identified failure modes, the results reveal distinct failure fingerprints between the two architectural paradigms, with the majority of agentic failures stemming from flawed reasoning and cognitive deadlocks. Motivated by these insights, we propose a collaborative Expert-Executor framework. It introduces a supervisory Expert agent tasked with providing strategic oversight and course-correction for a primary Executor agent. This architecture is designed to correct flawed reasoning and break the cognitive deadlocks that frequently lead to failure. Experiments show that our framework solves 22.2% of previously intractable issues for a leading single agent. These findings pave the way for building more robust agents through diagnostic evaluation and collaborative design.

Related papers

• BeyondSWE: Can Current Code Agent Survive Beyond Single-Repo Bug Fixing? [61.247730037229815]
  We introduce BeyondSWE, a comprehensive benchmark that broadens existing evaluations along two axes - resolution scope and knowledge scope.<n>To investigate the role of external knowledge, we develop SearchSWE, a framework that integrates deep search with coding abilities.<n>This work offers both a realistic, challenging evaluation benchmark and a flexible framework to advance research toward more capable code agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-03T17:52:01Z)
• What Makes a Good LLM Agent for Real-world Penetration Testing? [37.56537537883771]
  We analyze 28 LLM-based penetration testing systems and evaluate five representative implementations across three benchmarks of increasing complexity.<n>We show that Type B failures share a root cause that is largely invariant to the underlying LLM: agents lack real-time task difficulty estimation.<n>We present Excalibur, a penetration testing agent that couples strong tooling with difficulty-aware planning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-19T18:42:40Z)
• Understanding Code Agent Behaviour: An Empirical Study of Success and Failure Trajectories [10.751728274263536]
  This paper presents an empirical study of agent trajectories, namely the execution traces capturing the steps agents take when attempting to resolve software issues.<n>We analyse trajectories from three state-of-the-art code agents (OpenHands, SWE-agent, and Prometheus) on the SWE-Bench benchmark, examining both successful and failed attempts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-31T18:58:13Z)
• Metacognitive Self-Correction for Multi-Agent System via Prototype-Guided Next-Execution Reconstruction [58.51530390018909]
  Large Language Model based multi-agent systems excel at collaborative problem solving but remain brittle to cascading errors.<n>We present MASC, a metacognitive framework that endows MAS with real-time, unsupervised, step-level error detection and self-correction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T05:35:37Z)
• Holistic Agent Leaderboard: The Missing Infrastructure for AI Agent Evaluation [87.47155146067962]
  We provide a standardized evaluation harness that orchestrates parallel evaluations across hundreds of tasks.<n>We conduct three-dimensional analysis spanning models, scaffolds, and benchmarks.<n>Our analysis reveals surprising insights, such as higher reasoning effort reducing accuracy in the majority of runs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T22:22:28Z)
• Demystifying deep search: a holistic evaluation with hint-free multi-hop questions and factorised metrics [89.1999907891494]
  We present WebDetective, a benchmark of hint-free multi-hop questions paired with a controlled Wikipedia sandbox.<n>Our evaluation of 25 state-of-the-art models reveals systematic weaknesses across all architectures.<n>We develop an agentic workflow, EvidenceLoop, that explicitly targets the challenges our benchmark identifies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-01T07:59:03Z)
• Eigen-1: Adaptive Multi-Agent Refinement with Monitor-Based RAG for Scientific Reasoning [53.45095336430027]
  We develop a unified framework that combines implicit retrieval and structured collaboration.<n>On Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) Bio/Chem Gold, our framework achieves 48.3% accuracy.<n>Results on SuperGPQA and TRQA confirm robustness across domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T14:05:55Z)
• Automatic Failure Attribution and Critical Step Prediction Method for Multi-Agent Systems Based on Causal Inference [8.823529310904162]
  Multi-agent systems (MAS) are critical for automating complex tasks, yet their practical deployment is hampered by the challenge of failure attribution.<n>We introduce the first failure attribution framework for MAS grounded in multi-granularity causal inference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-10T15:22:00Z)
• A layered architecture for log analysis in complex IT systems [0.21756081703276]
  This dissertation introduces a three-layered architecture to support DevOps in failure resolution.<n>The first layer, Log Investigation, performs autonomous log labeling and anomaly classification.<n>The second layer, Anomaly Detection, detects behaviors deviating from the norm.<n>The third layer, Root Cause Analysis, identifies minimal log sets describing failures, their origin, and event sequences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-29T11:28:21Z)
• Exploring Autonomous Agents: A Closer Look at Why They Fail When Completing Tasks [8.218266805768687]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-18T17:55:22Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• AutoDetect: Towards a Unified Framework for Automated Weakness Detection in Large Language Models [95.09157454599605]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly powerful, but they still exhibit significant but subtle weaknesses.<n>Traditional benchmarking approaches cannot thoroughly pinpoint specific model deficiencies.<n>We introduce a unified framework, AutoDetect, to automatically expose weaknesses in LLMs across various tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T15:16:45Z)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making.<n>We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill.<n>Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)

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.