Huanxiang Feng

Qian Xiong, Yuekai Huang, Bo Yang et al.

LLMs have advanced tool-using agents for real-world applications, yet they often lead to unexpected behaviors or results. Beyond obvious failures, the subtle issue of "intent deviation" severely hinders reliable evaluation and performance improvement. Existing post-training methods generally leverage either real system samples or virtual data simulated by LLMs. However, the former is costly due to reliance on hand-crafted user requests, while the latter suffers from distribution shift from the real tools in the wild. Additionally, both methods lack negative samples tailored to intent deviation scenarios, hindering effective guidance on preference learning. We introduce RISE, a "Real-to-Virtual" method designed to mitigate intent deviation. Anchoring on verified tool primitives, RISE synthesizes virtual trajectories and generates diverse negative samples through mutation on critical parameters. With synthetic data, RISE fine-tunes backbone LLMs via the two-stage training for intent alignment. Evaluation results demonstrate that data synthesized by RISE achieve promising results in eight metrics covering user requires, execution trajectories and agent responses. Integrating with training, RISE achieves an average 35.28% improvement in Acctask (task completion) and 23.27% in Accintent (intent alignment), outperforming SOTA baselines by 1.20--42.09% and 1.17--54.93% respectively.

Mengzhuo Chen, Junjie Wang, Fangwen Mu et al.

Failure attribution, i.e., identifying the responsible agent and decisive step of a failure, is particularly challenging in LLM-based multi-agent systems (MAS) due to their natural-language reasoning, nondeterministic outputs, and intricate interaction dynamics. A reliable benchmark is therefore essential to guide and evaluate attribution techniques. Yet existing benchmarks rely on partially observable traces that capture only agent outputs, omitting the inputs and context that developers actually use when debugging. We argue that failure attribution should be studied under full execution observability, aligning with real-world developer-facing scenarios where complete traces, rather than only outputs, are accessible for diagnosis. To this end, we introduce TraceElephant, a benchmark designed for failure attribution with full execution traces and reproducible environments. We then systematically evaluate failure attribution techniques across various configurations. Specifically, full traces improve attribution accuracy by up to 76\% over a partial-observation counterpart, confirming that missing inputs obscure many failure causes. TraceElephant provides a foundation for follow-up failure attribution research, promoting evaluation practices that reflect real-world debugging and supporting the development of more transparent MASs.