Dependable Long-Horizon LLM Agents: A Trajectory-Centered Empirical Study of Where Errors Enter and Which Controls Reach Them
Abstract
Domain fit: AI-adjacent · Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
When an LLM agent fails part-way through a long task, the usual analysis records a symptom: a failure-mode label, or the agent and step judged responsible. It does not say where the error entered, which state carried it to the symptom, whether anything in the trajectory contradicted it, or which control could have caught it. We define an episode record that ties a candidate fault to its origin, propagation, detection, response and consequence, located by operational phase and state domain, and that names the control families whose observation and reach cover it. We turned the record into a written annotation protocol and applied it to 95 failed runs of six multi-agent systems from the public Who&When and MAD corpora, reading each trajectory in full. Faults enter early (median at 0.18 of the run), mostly as wrong decisions or fabrications over task state, and in 37 of 88 Who&When runs before the step the corpus' human labels mark as decisive. In 72% of failed runs the trajectory already contained evidence against the error before the failure; in 88% of those no agent acted on it. Something flagged a deviation in 31% of runs, but no response removed the deviated state. Independent judges reading the unused evidence, task contracts fixed at admission, and re-checking beliefs against the environment reach most episodes; restoring the agent's own state would have sufficed in 35 of 95 runs. A text scan of the raw corpus also shows that 45% of the hand-crafted Who&When failures ended with a provider content-filter crash after which the harness emitted a final answer no agent produced, a failure class that neither symptom taxonomies nor responsible-agent labels represent. Protocol, records and scripts are included.
Results and benchmarks
When an LLM agent fails part-way through a long task, the usual analysis records a symptom: a failure-mode label, or the agent and step judged responsible.
Benchmark evidence is limited
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Implementation
No direct implementation yet
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Time to first repro: a few days
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Validation caveat
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Datasets
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Tasks
Agentic tool use
Methods
Transformer
Domains
Large Language Models, AI Agents
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXJump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.