← 首页|学术|When Agentic Executions Fail: Detecting and Localizing Runtime Faults from Telemetry
cs.AI, cs.SE · 2608.14680 · 2026/08/04

When Agentic Executions Fail: Detecting and Localizing Runtime Faults from Telemetry

Zhang, Chenkai, Li, Yiran, Tian, Yifang, Bachras, Michalis, Jacobsen, Hans-Arno
TL;DR:AGENTCHAOSBENCH:从执行遥测检测并定位 agent 系统运行时故障——在工具、模型、guardrail、agent 间边界注入 10 类故障(工具不可用/慢、响应损坏/过大、委托延迟/循环/错路、guardrail 绕过等),275 条 trace(250 故障+对照)。

🎯 问题

agent 系统可靠性属于整个执行(工具调用、模型调用、guardrails、agent 间消息),而非最终答案;只看任务结果无法知道运行为什么失败、怎么失败。

🔬 方法

五个异构应用通过 Agent-to-Agent 协议协调 agent、经 MCP 调工具;在四类边界注入 10 种运行故障 + 无故障对照;产出 275 条 sanitized traces(250 故障执行);用遥测做故障检测与定位。
章节结构(全文标题提取):
1. Introduction
2. Benchmark Design and Construction
3. Evaluation
4. Related Work
5. Discussion
6. Conclusion and Future Work

📊 结果

公开故障遥测 benchmark;诊断多边界、多故障类型的运行失败比只看最终结果更有信息量。

💡 与研究方向关联

agent 运行时观测性基建:故障定位在工具/模型/guardrail/agent 边界而非答案——与 duplex 的 Interaction Layer 监测 turn-taking 与执行健康的思路一致,只是粒度是运行健康而非会话韵律。

📝 原文摘要

▶ 原文摘要 Abstract
Reliability in LLM-based agentic systems is a property of the whole execution (its tool calls, model calls, guardrails, and inter-agent messages), not of the final answer alone, yet evaluating only task outcomes reveals little about how or why a run fails. We present AGENTCHAOSBENCH, a benchmark for detecting and localizing runtime faults in agentic systems from their execution telemetry. We run five heterogeneous applications that coordinate agents over the Agent-to-Agent protocol and call tools through the Model Context Protocol, and inject ten types of operational fault (unavailable or slow tools, corrupted or oversized responses, and delayed, looped, or misrouted delegations and bypassed guardrails) at their tool, model, guardrail, and inter-agent boundaries, alongside a no-fault control. The resulting dataset contains 275 sanitized traces: 250 faulty executions spanning ten fault types and 25 no-fault controls. Each faulty trace is aligned with the no-fault execution of the same input; fault-type labels and, where applicable, location labels are held out from diagnosis. On structured single-trace inputs, a first set of zero-shot LLM baselines shows the task is far from solved: local detectors up to 14B parameters reach only 13.6-19.2% top-1 fault-type accuracy and the frontier DeepSeek-v4-pro only 24.8%, while jointly identifying the fault type and its location tops out at 22%; reference-dependent faults (above all a bypassed guardrail) stay near-unsolved from a single trace. An aligned reference improves selected relative faults but does not resolve guardrail bypass. The held-out labels and compact prediction format support reproducible comparison of LLM-based and non-LLM diagnosis methods.
Deep Read · 2026-08-19高松灯 / Agent 日报 · Agent 架构与推理
可观测性运行时故障TelemetryAgent可靠性