Skip to content
Preprint

Real-Time Detection and Repair of LLM Agent Failures

Aug 2026 · 3 citations · 33 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

This work adds a layer carrying deterministic verification, which recomputes a run's stated total from the tool results it actually received and confirms every required call was made, and asks how much detection is achievable from observable step telemetry alone, using monitors costing microseconds per step and trained only on healthy runs.

Abstract

LLM agents fail mid-episode -- they loop, cascade tool errors, drift off goal, fabricate results, or silently absorb corrupted content -- and the standard remedy, judging every step with a second LLM, costs more than the agent itself. We ask how much detection is achievable from observable step telemetry alone, using monitors costing microseconds per step and trained only on healthy runs. On 2,823 committed agent episodes across three frameworks, three local models (qwen2.5 7b/3b, llama3.1 8b) and a commercial API (gemini-2.5-flash), a one-class echo-state-network ensemble with CUSUM alarms detects 0.71 of failures at a 5% false-alarm budget (AUROC 0.872). Its advantage over a memoryless baseline is a monotone function of post-onset horizon (+0.09 at<=3 steps, +0.40 at>=9), predicting its own failure region out of sample on AFTraj-2K. Ranking transfers with no retraining to two corpora from other groups (AFTraj-2K 0.745, ATBench 0.779). Monitors carry two burdens: a per-deployment healthy null (they do not transfer -- AUROC 0.527 cold against 0.885 recalibrated) and a residual false-alarm rate. We add a layer carrying neither: deterministic verification, which recomputes a run's stated total from the tool results it actually received and confirms every required call was made. Head-to-head it catches 60% of failures (96% with the coverage check) at 0 of 63 false positives against the monitor's 54% at 17%, transfers unchanged to llama3.1:8b (110 of 110 at 0 of 10), and trips on 0 of 1825 healthy episodes. Detection is then closed into repair: each flagged run is rolled back and re-run live, recovering 45% of failures against a 16% resampling control (p=0.0005) and lifting task success from 52% to 73% for about one extra model call per run. The system runs at ~200 microseconds per step, three orders of magnitude below a judge call. Code, traces and results are released.

View source

Similar papers

#artificial intelligence Preprint Aug 2026

CURA: Certified Runtime Alarms for Computer-Use Agents

This work introduces CURA (Certified Runtime Alarms for Computer-Use Agents), an external monitor that reads only harness-visible telemetry, with no model internals, extra LLM calls, or prompt changes, and turns the running trajectory into a sequential test with certified false-alarm control.

Divake Kumar, Sina Tayebati, Devashri Naik et al. · 1 citation
#artificial intelligence Preprint Sep 2026

Triggers and Diagnostics for LLM-Based Interpretability Failures in Active Inference Agents

LLM explainers are increasingly attached to autonomous agents as runtime oversight, with operators reading a generated account of the agent's beliefs and actions rather than its internal state. We audit the account itself, pairing an Active Inference (AIF) agent that tracks German grid demand and adjusts generation wit...

Param Raval, Rohit Shenoy, Archana Vaidheeswaran · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

Online Monitoring and Corrective Steering of Programming Agents

LivePlan decouples judging from advising: a deterministic, rule-based monitor examines general signals over the trajectory to detect issues without invoking an LLM, and only when an issue is detected does it consult an advisor LLM for a high-level, next-step correction.

Shuyang Liu, Saman Dehghan, Ji Young Kim et al. · 1 citation
#artificial intelligence Preprint Sep 2026

Where Cyber Agents Struggle: Bottleneck Analysis of Multi-Stage LLM Agents

This work presents an end-to-end diagnostic study of an Autonomous Adversary system with orchestrator, executor, and validator LLMs in enterprise-like lateral-movement scenarios and uses comparative LLM-as-a-Judge analysis to identify planning deficiencies.

Saeedeh Lohrasbi, Mohammad Mamun, Ahmed Yehia et al. · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.