How Do LLMs Fail In Agentic Scenarios? A Qualitative Analysis of Success and Failure Scenarios of Various LLMs in Agentic Simulations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.07497v2
• Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2025 08:55:59 GMT
• Title: How Do LLMs Fail In Agentic Scenarios? A Qualitative Analysis of Success and Failure Scenarios of Various LLMs in Agentic Simulations
• Authors: JV Roig,
• Abstract summary: We investigate how large language models (LLMs) fail when operating as autonomous agents with tool-use capabilities.<n>Using the Kamiwaza Agentic Merit Index (KAMI) v0.1 benchmark, we analyze 900 execution traces from three representative models.<n>We identify four recurring failure archetypes: premature action without grounding, over-helpfulness that substitutes missing entities, vulnerability to distractor-induced context pollution, and fragile execution.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: We investigate how large language models (LLMs) fail when operating as autonomous agents with tool-use capabilities. Using the Kamiwaza Agentic Merit Index (KAMI) v0.1 benchmark, we analyze 900 execution traces from three representative models - Granite 4 Small, Llama 4 Maverick, and DeepSeek V3.1 - across filesystem, text extraction, CSV analysis, and SQL scenarios. Rather than focusing on aggregate scores, we perform fine-grained, per-trial behavioral analysis to surface the strategies that enable successful multi-step tool execution and the recurrent failure modes that undermine reliability. Our findings show that model scale alone does not predict agentic robustness: Llama 4 Maverick (400B) performs only marginally better than Granite 4 Small (32B) in some uncertainty-driven tasks, while DeepSeek V3.1's superior reliability derives primarily from post-training reinforcement learning rather than architecture or size. Across models, we identify four recurring failure archetypes: premature action without grounding, over-helpfulness that substitutes missing entities, vulnerability to distractor-induced context pollution, and fragile execution under load. These patterns highlight the need for agentic evaluation methods that emphasize interactive grounding, recovery behavior, and environment-aware adaptation, suggesting that reliable enterprise deployment requires not just stronger models but deliberate training and design choices that reinforce verification, constraint discovery, and adherence to source-of-truth data.

Related papers

• 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)
• AgentCPM-Explore: Realizing Long-Horizon Deep Exploration for Edge-Scale Agents [75.67445299298949]
  AgentCPM-Explore is a compact 4B agent model with high knowledge density and strong exploration capability.<n>We introduce a holistic training framework featuring parameter-space model fusion, reward signal denoising, and contextual information refinement.<n>AgentCPM-Explore achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance among 4B-class models, matches or surpasses 8B-class SOTA models on four benchmarks, and even outperforms larger-scale models such as Claude-4.5-Sonnet or DeepSeek-v3.2 in five benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-06T08:24:59Z)
• One Model to Critique Them All: Rewarding Agentic Tool-Use via Efficient Reasoning [54.580646706013965]
  Reward models (RMs) play a critical role in aligning large language models with human preferences.<n>We introduce ToolRM, a family of lightweight generative RMs tailored for general tool-use scenarios.<n>To build these models, we propose a novel pipeline that constructs pairwise preference data using rule-based scoring and multidimensional sampling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-30T06:08:27Z)
• When Punctuation Matters: A Large-Scale Comparison of Prompt Robustness Methods for LLMs [55.20230501807337]
  We present the first systematic evaluation of 5 methods for improving prompt robustness within a unified experimental framework.<n>We benchmark these techniques on 8 models from Llama, Qwen and Gemma families across 52 tasks from Natural Instructions dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-15T10:32:50Z)
• One Token to Fool LLM-as-a-Judge [52.45386385722788]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly trusted as automated judges, assisting evaluation and providing reward signals for training other models.<n>We uncover a critical vulnerability even in this reference-based paradigm: generative reward models are systematically susceptible to reward hacking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-11T17:55:22Z)
• Reliable Decision Support with LLMs: A Framework for Evaluating Consistency in Binary Text Classification Applications [0.7124971549479361]
  This study introduces a framework for evaluating consistency in large language model (LLM) binary text classification.<n>We determine sample size requirements, develop metrics for invalid responses, and evaluate intra- and inter-rater reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T21:12:58Z)
• 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)
• SafeMLRM: Demystifying Safety in Multi-modal Large Reasoning Models [50.34706204154244]
  Acquiring reasoning capabilities catastrophically degrades inherited safety alignment.<n>Certain scenarios suffer 25 times higher attack rates.<n>Despite tight reasoning-answer safety coupling, MLRMs demonstrate nascent self-correction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-09T06:53:23Z)
• Thinking Longer, Not Larger: Enhancing Software Engineering Agents via Scaling Test-Time Compute [61.00662702026523]
  We propose a unified Test-Time Compute scaling framework that leverages increased inference-time instead of larger models.<n>Our framework incorporates two complementary strategies: internal TTC and external TTC.<n>We demonstrate our textbf32B model achieves a 46% issue resolution rate, surpassing significantly larger models such as DeepSeek R1 671B and OpenAI o1.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-31T07:31:32Z)
• Adaptive Distraction: Probing LLM Contextual Robustness with Automated Tree Search [76.54475437069395]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle to maintain their original performance when faced with semantically coherent but task-irrelevant contextual information.<n>We propose a dynamic distraction generation framework based on tree search, where the generation process is guided by model behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-03T18:43:36Z)
• Language Models (Mostly) Know When to Stop Reading [24.246459354913146]
  Large language models (LLMs) process entire input contexts indiscriminately, which is inefficient when the information required to answer a query is localized within the context.<n>We present dynamic context cutoff, a novel method enabling LLMs to self-terminate processing upon acquiring sufficient task-relevant information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-03T03:38:29Z)
• Improving Retrieval Augmented Language Model with Self-Reasoning [20.715106330314605]
  We propose a novel self-reasoning framework aimed at improving the reliability and traceability of RALMs.<n>The framework involves constructing self-reason trajectories with three processes: a relevance-aware process, an evidence-aware selective process, and a trajectory analysis process.<n>We have evaluated our framework across four public datasets to demonstrate the superiority of our method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-29T09:05:10Z)

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.