OrchestraBench: Evaluating Multi-Agent Orchestration Failure Modes, Recovery, and Decomposition Quality
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.05263v1
- Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2026 17:27:15 GMT
- Title: OrchestraBench: Evaluating Multi-Agent Orchestration Failure Modes, Recovery, and Decomposition Quality
- Abstract summary: OrchestraBench evaluates failure, recovery, and decomposition through a controlled, seed-reproducible failure-injection harness over templated enterprise.<n>It introduces cascade radius and per-failure-mode recovery as primary metrics and compares routing policies with bootstrap confidence intervals and paired tests.
- Score: 0.0
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: Multi-agent orchestration frameworks are moving from demos to production, yet benchmarks typically report task accuracy without diagnosing why a pipeline failed, where a cascade began, or which routing decision caused the breakdown. OrchestraBench evaluates failure, recovery, and decomposition through a controlled, seed-reproducible failure-injection harness over templated enterprise workflows. It introduces cascade radius and per-failure-mode recovery as primary metrics and compares routing policies with bootstrap confidence intervals and paired tests. On a 26-case gold-labelled diagnostic, a keyword/flag router scored 0% on adversarial cases with misleading or missing surface flags, whereas an intent-reasoning model router scored 100%, matching the oracle. Controlled mechanism probes with a real Claude agent over a verifiable arithmetic dependency chain revealed three failure-handling tiers across five MAST modes: tool faults recovered fully (1.0), ambiguous delegation recovered partially (0.30), and three latent or semantic modes never recovered (0.0). This ordering persisted when the computation was reframed as a loan-approval workflow and across Sonnet, Opus, and Haiku, although absolute rates shifted with context. Blind retry reproduced latent faults and increased time to detection, indicating that detection and attribution are necessary for containment. Cascade radius increased with pipeline depth (mean 0.9 to 4.7 across depths 3-7). A trusted-state repair ablation showed that apparent containment gains primarily came from the trusted-state signal rather than autonomous detection. These results are controlled-chain mechanism probes, not domain-workload claims.
Related papers
- Fantastic Adaptive Taxonomies and How to Use Them [100.20614173157708]
AdaMAST converts execution traces into a compact, evidence-grounded failure taxonomy.<n>No code is hand-authored, no trace human-annotated.<n>In agent-system search, taxonomy-coded diagnoses of failed candidates outperform free-form.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-07-17T17:41:16Z) - What Accuracy and Gradient Cosine Miss: Evaluating Feedback Alignment via Scale Stability, Reference Validity, and Depth Utility [48.10132234701036]
We propose a diagnostic evaluation protocol based on three checks -- scale stability, reference validity, and depth utility -- together with per-layer rather than aggregate cosine reporting.<n>Across multiple architectures and methods, our protocol identifies all failures with wide calibration margins.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-06-19T06:04:17Z) - Regimes: An Auditable, Held-Out-Gated Improvement Loop Demonstrated on LongMemEval with ActiveGraph [0.0]
We show that an event-sourced agent runtime turns controlled improvement into a first-class workflow.<n>When the agent's state is a deterministic projection of an append-only event log, failures are recorded, a run replays exactly from its log, and candidate patches scope to typed pipeline seams, gates are auditable.<n>We demonstrate this with Regimes, a loop on the ActiveGraph runtime that diagnoses failed evaluations, proposes a repair at a pipeline point, and promotes it only after static checks, sandbox execution, in-sample evaluation, and held-out validation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-06-08T23:04:35Z) - Where Do Deep-Research Agents Go Wrong? Span-Level Error Localization in Agent Trajectories [51.22051230894794]
Evaluation based on final answers shows whether an agent succeeds, but not which parts of the trajectory make the answer unreliable.<n>We collect 2,790 real trajectories from two agent frameworks, three backbone models, and three benchmarks, convert raw logs into semantic spans, and annotate harmful error spans through expert review.<n>We propose DRIFT, a claim-centric auditing framework that tracks agent claims, checks their support in trajectory evidence, and marks spans where unsupported or conflicting claims affect the answer path.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-06-01T10:50:26Z) - Self-Healing Agentic Orchestrators for Reliable Tool-Augmented Large Language Model Systems [0.10210859604701106]
Self-healing agentic orchestrator treats reliability as a runtime bounded control problem.<n>Self-healing achieves 98.8% task success, compared with 94.5% for retry-only and 93.8% for full replanning.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-05-31T19:27:22Z) - SAAG: Structured Agent Assessment and Grounding [13.62148061055744]
We propose a cascaded diagnostic framework that decomposes agent-calling evaluation into three sequential stages.<n>We evaluate this framework on a benchmark derived from Glaive's function-calling dataset across registry sizes of 5, 10, and 15 agents.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-04-30T19:33:58Z) - Beyond the Attention Stability Boundary: Agentic Self-Synthesizing Reasoning Protocols [6.357772907811544]
Self- Synthesizing Reasoning Protocols (SSRP) is a metacognitive framework that implements a discrete separation between architectural planning and procedural execution.<n>We present 3 experimental tiers: a shallow recency-based retrieval pilot, a high-entropy SOP, and a semantic hijacked 3-hop Multi-Fact Synthesis task.<n>Our results empirically locate the Attention Stability Boundary, where stateless Vanilla ReAct baselines for GPT 5.4 collapse to 0.1% success while SSRP achieves a 715X Resilience Lift.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-04-27T14:13:30Z) - Label-Free Detection of Governance Evidence Degradation in Risk Decision Systems [0.0]
Risk decision systems in fraud detection and credit scoring operate under structural label absence.<n>No existing framework integrates drift detection with governance evidence assessment and operational response.<n>This paper presents a label-free governance monitoring extension to the Governance Drift Toolkit.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-04-20T05:46:15Z) - Information Fidelity in Tool-Using LLM Agents: A Martingale Analysis of the Model Context Protocol [69.11739400975445]
We introduce the first theoretical framework for analyzing error accumulation in Model Context Protocol (MCP) agents.<n>We show that cumulative distortion exhibits linear growth and high-probability deviations bounded by $O(sqrtT)$.<n>Key findings include: semantic weighting reduces distortion by 80%, and periodic re-grounding approximately every 9 steps suffices for error control.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-02-10T21:08:53Z) - CARE What Fails: Contrastive Anchored-REflection for Verifiable Multimodal [84.71254539482369]
Group-relative reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) often wastes the most informative data it already has the failures.<n>We present CARE, a failure-centric post-training framework for multimodal reasoning that turns errors into supervision.<n> CARE improves accuracy and training smoothness while explicitly increasing the share of learning signal that comes from failures.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-12-22T16:34:21Z) - 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)
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.