Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

Why Do Agent Teams Fail Across Boundaries? A Failure Taxonomy for Agent-to-Agent Systems with Private States

Sarath Shekkizhar, Prathyusha Jwalapuram, Zixuan Ke, Vaidehi Patil, Jiayu Wang +10 morePublished Oct 14, 2026
arXiv PDF
Researcher verdict
Context only
Use as context only
Benchmark evidence
Missing
Not verified yet
Time to first repro
A few days
Plan setup time
Risk flags
2
Review before use

Abstract

Domain fit: AI-adjacent · Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.

Agents are increasingly interacting with other agents that act for different principals (people or organizations on whose behalf they work), such as a buyer's personal agent negotiating with an enterprise's seller agent. In such agent-to-agent (A2A) scenarios, each agent has its own environment and holds information and authority that the other cannot see. Moreover, the interests of each agent may be aligned (cooperative), partly aligned (mixed-motive), or opposed (competitive). Existing multi-agent system failure studies assume one orchestrator, shared workspace, or single principal. We ask how A2A systems fail when these assumptions are removed. We study more than 2,500 recorded runs of A2A systems built from different agent harnesses and models, spanning 488 scenarios across eight families (legal, CRM, security, commerce, etc.). From these traces, we derive $A^2$-Failures, a taxonomy of 20 A2A failure modes in four categories: (i) discovery and delegation, (ii) grounding and record consistency, (iii) verification, and (iv) conduct and fidelity. Three findings hold across every harness, model, and scenario studied: (1) discovery and interaction are driven by the phrasing of the task rather than the availability of peer agents; (2) no agent verifies a peer's factual claim on its own initiative, so an A2A system inherits the reliability of its least reliable participant unless the protocol or mechanism performs the check; and (3) the aggregate outcome score credits the agent completing the task while staying blind to the coordination, verification, and conduct failures beneath it, so A2A systems must be evaluated per agent, against each agent's own principal. We release the run logs behind the taxonomy at https://huggingface.co/datasets/a2a-salesforce/a2-failures.

Results and benchmarks

Freshness tier: warm
Agents are increasingly interacting with other agents that act for different principals (people or organizations on whose behalf they work), such as a buyer's personal agent negotiating with an enterprise's seller agent.

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.

Implementation evidence summary
Confidence: low

No direct maintained repository implementation was found, but paper-linked Hugging Face artifacts are available.

Reproduction risks
  • Estimate assumes artifact-level reproduction; full training reproduction may require additional paper details.

Reproduction readiness

Time to first repro: days
Last checked: Oct 17, 2026

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.

Hugging Face artifacts

Models

No trustworthy models matches right now.

Search models on Hugging Face

Spaces

No trustworthy spaces matches right now.

Search spaces on Hugging Face

Research context

Tasks

Agentic tool use

Methods

Agentic systems

Domains

AI Agents

Evaluation and human feedback data

Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.

Open in HFEPX
Explore similar papers

Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.