analiza aiqbench
This paper proposes a novel interaction-centric taxonomy to diagnose agent failures by distinguishing between faults in the model, its harness (tools/environment), or evaluation benchmarks rather than relying on superficial outcome labels. By mapping 41 failure modes to specific component interactions, it provides an actionable framework for developers to assign precise repair strategies like post-training versus scaffolding improvements across diverse agent architectures. The approach demonstrates strong reproducibility with independent reasoning agents achieving a Cohen's kappa of 0.76 against human annotations.
Model or Harness? An Interaction-Centric Taxonomy for Localizing Agent Failures
arXiv:2607.28802v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing evaluations often reduce agent failures to system-level outcomes, obscuring where the fault originated and which intervention would improve the agent system. This creates a repair-assignment problem: the same visible failure may call for model post-training, harness engineering, environment redesign, or benchmark repair depending on its source. Because agent behavior emerges from interactions among models, harnesses, users, tools, memory, and environments, outcome-level labels are often insufficient for improvement. Most failure taxonomies do little to resolve this problem because they are benchmark-specific and lack a shared structure. We introduce an interaction-centric taxonomy that localizes failures to the interactions in which they originate and identifies the responsible component. It organizes 41 failure modes by assigning each to an edge between two components and a fault side indicating where the repair belongs. This makes the taxonomy actionable: model-side failures identify targets for post-training, harness-side failures point to scaffolding and tool-integration fixes, and environment or grader failures reveal evaluation conditions requiring redesign. The schema applies across agent architectures, from coding assistants to long-horizon personal assistants and multi-agent systems. We ground the taxonomy in worked examples from public benchmarks, model system cards, published reports, and logged agent trajectories, and evaluate its reproducibility using independent reasoning agents as judges. Across four frontier models, the strongest judge reaches Cohen's $\kappa=0.76$ against human category labels, suggesting that the categories capture shared structure rather than annotator-specific preferences.
Title:Model or Harness? An Interaction-Centric Taxonomy for Localizing Agent Failures
Abstract:Existing evaluations often reduce agent failures to system-level outcomes, obscuring where the fault originated and which intervention would improve the agent system. This creates a repair-assignment problem: the same visible failure may call for model post-training, harness engineering, environment redesign, or benchmark repair depending on its source. Because agent behavior emerges from interactions among models, harnesses, users, tools, memory, and environments, outcome-level labels are often insufficient for improvement. Most failure taxonomies do little to resolve this problem because they are benchmark-specific and lack a shared structure. We introduce an interaction-centric taxonomy that localizes failures to the interactions in which they originate and identifies the responsible component. It organizes 41 failure modes by assigning each to an edge between two components and a fault side indicating where the repair belongs. This makes the taxonomy actionable: model-side failures identify targets for post-training, harness-side failures point to scaffolding and tool-integration fixes, and environment or grader failures reveal evaluation conditions requiring redesign. The schema applies across agent architectures, from coding assistants to long-horizon personal assistants and multi-agent systems. We ground the taxonomy in worked examples from public benchmarks, model system cards, published reports, and logged agent trajectories, and evaluate its reproducibility using independent reasoning agents as judges. Across four frontier models, the strongest judge reaches Cohen's $\kappa=0.76$ against human category labels, suggesting that the categories capture shared structure rather than annotator-specific preferences.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2607.28802 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2607.28802v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.28802 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 332 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · 10 sept. 2026

Vertical Advantage: Transforming Industries with Lakebase and Agentic AI
Databricks · 27 aug. 2026

Presentation: Building Evals for AI Adoption: from Principles to Practice
InfoQ · 29 mai 2026

Claude Code’s Next Era — Thariq Shihipar, Anthropic
Latent Space · 29 sept. 2026