analiza aiqbench
This research reframes root-cause attribution for long-horizon AI agents as a search problem, proposing an iterative "Continual Search" framework to overcome the limitations of one-shot LLM judgments. By systematically nudging models to explore sparse evidence across distant actions, the method significantly improves diagnostic accuracy and demonstrates that effective search strategies can outperform raw model scale.
Root-Cause Attribution Is a Search Problem: Continual Search for Long-Horizon Agent Failures
arXiv:2609.13463v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The increasing deployment of AI agents in long-horizon tasks yields massive execution logs. Diagnosing failures within these records is crucial for reliability, as it transforms outcome-level signals into actionable interventions. The sheer scale of the data renders human review impractical, driving the need for automated root-cause attribution (RCA). However, automated RCA methods using LLMs suffer from low diagnostic accuracy, especially as execution traces grow larger. They struggle because relevant information is often sparse, distributed across distant actions, and disconnected from the visible failure, reducing root-cause attribution to a massive search problem. Existing RCA methods typically rely on one-shot LLM judgments to diagnose failures from execution traces. While effective for shorter trajectories, these judges tend to settle on a plausible diagnosis early, leaving critical evidence in longer traces unexamined. We introduce Continual Search, an iterative framework that nudges the judge, over successive turns, to keep searching for unresolved diagnostic evidence. We evaluate Continual Search across four existing RCA benchmarks. Recognizing the lack of massive execution traces in current benchmarks, we introduce MegaRCA-Mix to evaluate RCA at scale. MegaRCA-Mix provides a challenging testbed of 50 human-annotated failure trials spanning long-horizon, execution-heavy tasks. Across multiple benchmark suites and model families, Continual Search consistently improves attribution performance. On MegaRCA-Mix, for example, it improves GPT-5.5's F1 score by more than 40\%, from $0.349$ to $0.498$. More interestingly, within the same model family, lower-tier models can even surpass their higher-tier counterparts, demonstrating that effective search supersedes raw model scale.
Abstract:The increasing deployment of AI agents in long-horizon tasks yields massive execution logs. Diagnosing failures within these records is crucial for reliability, as it transforms outcome-level signals into actionable interventions. The sheer scale of the data renders human review impractical, driving the need for automated root-cause attribution (RCA). However, automated RCA methods using LLMs suffer from low diagnostic accuracy, especially as execution traces grow larger. They struggle because relevant information is often sparse, distributed across distant actions, and disconnected from the visible failure, reducing root-cause attribution to a massive search problem. Existing RCA methods typically rely on one-shot LLM judgments to diagnose failures from execution traces. While effective for shorter trajectories, these judges tend to settle on a plausible diagnosis early, leaving critical evidence in longer traces unexamined. We introduce Continual Search, an iterative framework that nudges the judge, over successive turns, to keep searching for unresolved diagnostic evidence. We evaluate Continual Search across four existing RCA benchmarks. Recognizing the lack of massive execution traces in current benchmarks, we introduce MegaRCA-Mix to evaluate RCA at scale. MegaRCA-Mix provides a challenging testbed of 50 human-annotated failure trials spanning long-horizon, execution-heavy tasks. Across multiple benchmark suites and model families, Continual Search consistently improves attribution performance. On MegaRCA-Mix, for example, it improves GPT-5.5's F1 score by more than 40\%, from $0.349$ to $0.498$. More interestingly, within the same model family, lower-tier models can even surpass their higher-tier counterparts, demonstrating that effective search supersedes raw model scale.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Software Engineering (cs.SE)
arXiv:2609.13463 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.13463v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.13463 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 · 346 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Why do models task game?
AI Alignment Forum · 6 aug. 2026

Why I Left Google DeepMind
LessWrong · 15 iul. 2026

Brief independent investigation of agents’ behavior, reasoning and collaboration in the OpenAI / Hugging Face hacking incident
METR · 26 aug. 2026
Performance Profiling on AMD GPUs – Part 5: Profiling-Driven Kernel Optimization with an AI Code-Assist Tool
AMD · 16 iul. 2026