Detecting Pipeline Failures through Fine-Grained Analysis of Web Agents

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.14382v1
• Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2025 19:34:49 GMT
• Title: Detecting Pipeline Failures through Fine-Grained Analysis of Web Agents
• Abstract summary: This work analyzes existing benchmarks and highlights the lack of fine-grained diagnostic tools.<n>We propose a modular evaluation framework that decomposes agent pipelines into interpretable stages for detailed error analysis.
• Score: 0.48156730450374763
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Web agents powered by large language models (LLMs) can autonomously perform complex, multistep tasks in dynamic web environments. However, current evaluations mostly focus on the overall success while overlooking intermediate errors. This limits insight into failure modes and hinders systematic improvement. This work analyzes existing benchmarks and highlights the lack of fine-grained diagnostic tools. To address this gap, we propose a modular evaluation framework that decomposes agent pipelines into interpretable stages for detailed error analysis. Using the SeeAct framework and the Mind2Web dataset as a case study, we show how this approach reveals actionable weaknesses missed by standard metrics - paving the way for more robust and generalizable web agents.

Related papers

• Adaptive Influence Graphs for Failure Attribution in Multi-Agent Systems [16.78530745432555]
  We introduce Adaptive Influence Graphs (AIGs), a two-stage agentic framework that transforms a failed trace into a structured graph and then navigates it to identify the critical error.<n>Across multiple models, we show that richer trace representations consistently improve failure attribution.<n>This affirms our hypothesis that attribution depends not only on the diagnosing model, but also on how the trace is represented and explored.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-25T10:18:19Z)
• FAMA: Failure-Aware Meta-Agentic Framework for Open-Source LLMs in Interactive Tool Use Environments [60.3427704389541]
  Large Language Models are being increasingly deployed as the decision-making core of autonomous agents.<n>Yet, in conversational benchmarks, these agents frequently fail due to the cascading effects of incorrect decision-making.<n>We present the Failure-Aware Meta-Agentic framework to tackle these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-28T02:21:53Z)
• Dynamic analysis enhances issue resolution [53.50448142467294]
  DAIRA (Dynamic Analysis-enhanced Issue Resolution Agent) is an automated repair framework that embeds dynamic analysis into the agent's reasoning cycle.<n> Driven by a Test Tracing-Driven methodology, DAIRA utilizes lightweight monitors to extract critical runtime data.<n>When powered by Gemini 3 Flash Preview, DAIRA establishes a new state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance, achieving a 79.4% resolution rate on the SWE-bench Verified dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-23T14:48:54Z)
• AgentTrace: Causal Graph Tracing for Root Cause Analysis in Deployed Multi-Agent Systems [0.0]
  We present AgentTrace, a lightweight causal tracing framework for post-hoc failure diagnosis in deployed multi-agent AI systems.<n>AgentTrace reconstructs causal graphs from execution logs, traces backward from error manifestations, and ranks candidate root causes using interpretable structural and positional signals.<n>Our results suggest that causal tracing provides a practical foundation for improving the reliability and trustworthiness of agentic systems in the wild.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-16T00:46:44Z)
• AgentProcessBench: Diagnosing Step-Level Process Quality in Tool-Using Agents [50.481033105867205]
  We introduce AgentProcessBench, the first benchmark dedicated to evaluating step-level effectiveness in realistic, tool-augmented trajectories.<n>The benchmark comprises 1,000 diverse trajectories and 8,509 human-labeled step annotations with 89.1% inter-annotator agreement.<n>It features a ternary labeling scheme to capture exploration and an error propagation rule to reduce labeling ambiguity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-15T16:13:58Z)
• AgentFixer: From Failure Detection to Fix Recommendations in LLM Agentic Systems [7.429835301272413]
  The framework includes fifteen failure-detection tools and two root-cause analysis modules.<n>It integrates lightweight rule-based checks with LLM-as-a-judge assessments to support structured incident detection, classification, and repair.<n>We applied the framework to IBM CUGA, evaluating its performance on the AppWorld and WebArena benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-18T14:55:35Z)
• AgentRx: Diagnosing AI Agent Failures from Execution Trajectories [9.61742219198197]
  We release a benchmark of 115 failed trajectories spanning structured API, incident management, and open-ended web/file tasks.<n>Each trajectory is annotated with a critical failure step and a category from a grounded-theory derived, cross-domain failure taxonomy.<n>We present AGENTRX, an automated domain-agnostic diagnostic framework that pinpoints the critical failure step in a failed agent trajectory.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-02T18:54:07Z)
• The Why Behind the Action: Unveiling Internal Drivers via Agentic Attribution [63.61358761489141]
  Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents are widely used in real-world applications such as customer service, web navigation, and software engineering.<n>We propose a novel framework for textbfgeneral agentic attribution, designed to identify the internal factors driving agent actions regardless of the task outcome.<n>We validate our framework across a diverse suite of agentic scenarios, including standard tool use and subtle reliability risks like memory-induced bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T15:22:21Z)
• WebDevJudge: Evaluating (M)LLMs as Critiques for Web Development Quality [62.43165871914528]
  We introduce WebDevJudge, a systematic benchmark for assessing LLM-as-a-judge performance in web development.<n>WebDevJudge comprises human preference labels over paired web implementations, annotated with structured and query-grounded rubrics.<n>In-depth analysis indicates this gap stems from fundamental model limitations, including failures in recognizing functional equivalence, verifying task feasibility, and mitigating bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-21T12:16:04Z)
• InspectCoder: Dynamic Analysis-Enabled Self Repair through interactive LLM-Debugger Collaboration [71.18377595277018]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently generate buggy code with complex logic errors that are challenging to diagnose.<n>We present InspectCoder, the first agentic program repair system that empowers LLMs to actively conduct dynamic analysis via interactive debugger control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-21T06:26:29Z)
• BrowserArena: Evaluating LLM Agents on Real-World Web Navigation Tasks [51.803138848305814]
  We introduce BrowserArena, a live open-web agent evaluation platform that collects user-submitted tasks.<n>We identify three consistent failure modes: captcha resolution, pop-up banner removal, and direct navigation to URLs.<n>Our findings surface both the diversity and brittleness of current web agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-02T15:22:21Z)
• 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)
• Rethinking Evaluation of Infrared Small Target Detection [105.59753496831739]
  This paper introduces a hybrid-level metric incorporating pixel- and target-level performance, proposing a systematic error analysis method, and emphasizing the importance of cross-dataset evaluation.<n>An open-source toolkit has be released to facilitate standardized benchmarking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-21T02:45:07Z)
• 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)
• LLMShot: Reducing snapshot testing maintenance via LLMs [0.5218155982819203]
  Snapshot testing has emerged as a critical technique for UI validation in modern software development.<n>This paper introduces LLMShot, a novel framework that leverages Vision-Language Models (VLMs) to automatically analyze snapshot test failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-14T08:47:19Z)
• WebArXiv: Evaluating Multimodal Agents on Time-Invariant arXiv Tasks [7.4706262500758385]
  We introduce WebArXiv, a benchmark for evaluating autonomous web agents.<n>WebArXiv consists of 275 web-based tasks grounded in the arXiv platform.<n>We propose a lightweight dynamic reflection mechanism that allows agents to selectively retrieve relevant past steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-01T16:43:57Z)
• ThinkGeo: Evaluating Tool-Augmented Agents for Remote Sensing Tasks [54.52092001110694]
  ThinkGeo is a benchmark designed to evaluate tool-augmented agents on remote sensing tasks via structured tool use and multi-step planning.<n>Inspired by tool-interaction paradigms, ThinkGeo includes human-curated queries spanning a wide range of real-world applications.<n>Our analysis reveals notable disparities in tool accuracy and planning consistency across models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T17:59:38Z)
• VACT: A Video Automatic Causal Testing System and a Benchmark [55.53300306960048]
  VACT is an **automated** framework for modeling, evaluating, and measuring the causal understanding of VGMs in real-world scenarios.<n>We introduce multi-level causal evaluation metrics to provide a detailed analysis of the causal performance of VGMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-08T10:54:42Z)
• Research on the Application of Spark Streaming Real-Time Data Analysis System and large language model Intelligent Agents [1.4582633500696451]
  This study explores the integration of Agent AI with LangGraph to enhance real-time data analysis systems in big data environments.<n>The proposed framework overcomes limitations of static, inefficient stateful computations, and lack of human intervention.<n>System architecture incorporates Apache Spark Streaming, Kafka, and LangGraph to create a high-performance sentiment analysis system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-10T05:51:11Z)
• The BrowserGym Ecosystem for Web Agent Research [151.90034093362343]
  BrowserGym ecosystem addresses the growing need for efficient evaluation and benchmarking of web agents.<n>We propose an extended BrowserGym-based ecosystem for web agent research, which unifies existing benchmarks from the literature.<n>We conduct the first large-scale, multi-benchmark web agent experiment and compare the performance of 6 state-of-the-art LLMs across 6 popular web agent benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-06T23:43:59Z)
• Unsupervised Model Diagnosis [49.36194740479798]
  This paper proposes Unsupervised Model Diagnosis (UMO) to produce semantic counterfactual explanations without any user guidance. Our approach identifies and visualizes changes in semantics, and then matches these changes to attributes from wide-ranging text sources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-08T17:59:03Z)

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.