REVIEW 2 cited by
Exploring Autonomous Agents: A Closer Look at Why They Fail When Completing Tasks
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Autonomous agent systems powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities in automating complex tasks. However, current evaluations largely rely on success rates without systematically analyzing the interactions, communication mechanisms, and failure causes within these systems. To bridge this gap, we present a benchmark of 34 representative programmable tasks designed to rigorously assess autonomous agents. Using this benchmark, we evaluate three popular open-source agent frameworks combined with two LLM backbones, observing a task completion rate of approximately 50%. Through in-depth failure analysis, we develop a three-tier taxonomy of failure causes aligned with task phases, highlighting planning errors, task execution issues, and incorrect response generation. Based on these insights, we propose actionable improvements to enhance agent planning and self-diagnosis capabilities. Our failure taxonomy, together with mitigation advice, provides an empirical foundation for developing more robust and effective autonomous agent systems in the future.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Failure as a Process: An Anatomy of CLI Coding Agent Trajectories
Across 1,794 CLI agent trajectories, failures are mostly epistemic, start by median step 7, and often stay silent until after lock-in.
-
SkillTV-Bench: Benchmarking How Well Judges Perform on Skill-Augmented Agentic Execution
SkillTV-Bench provides a multi-domain, skill-aware trajectory verification benchmark, and SkillTV-Evolve's evolved JudgeSkill improves an agent judge's accuracy by 14.8 points on a held-out set.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.