📌 TOPINDIATOURS Hot ai: Which Agent Causes Task Failures and When?Researchers from

Share My Research is Synced’s column that welcomes scholars to share their own research breakthroughs with over 1.5M global AI enthusiasts. Beyond technological advances, Share My Research also calls for interesting stories behind the research and exciting research ideas. Contact us: chain.zhang@jiqizhixin.com

Meet the authors
Institutions: Penn State University, Duke University, Google DeepMind, University of Washington, Meta, Nanyang Technological University, and Oregon State University. The co-first authors are Shaokun Zhang of Penn State University and Ming Yin of Duke University.

In recent years, LLM Multi-Agent systems have garnered widespread attention for their collaborative approach to solving complex problems. However, it’s a common scenario for these systems to fail at a task despite a flurry of activity. This leaves developers with a critical question: which agent, at what point, was responsible for the failure? Sifting through vast interaction logs to pinpoint the root cause feels like finding a needle in a haystack—a time-consuming and labor-intensive effort.
 
This is a familiar frustration for developers. In increasingly complex Multi-Agent systems, failures are not only common but also incredibly difficult to diagnose due to the autonomous nature of agent collaboration and long information chains. Without a way to quickly identify the source of a failure, system iteration and optimization grind to a halt.
 
To address this challenge, researchers from Penn State University and Duke University, in collaboration with institutions including Google DeepMind, have introduced the novel research problem of “Automated Failure Attribution.” They have constructed the first benchmark dataset for this task, Who&When, and have developed and evaluated several automated attribution methods. This work not only highlights the complexity of the task but also paves a new path toward enhancing the reliability of LLM Multi-Agent systems.

The paper has been accepted as a Spotlight presentation at the top-tier machine learning conference, ICML 2025, and the code and dataset are now fully open-source.

Paper：https://arxiv.org/pdf/2505.00212
Code：https://github.com/mingyin1/Agents_Failure_Attribution
Dataset：https://huggingface.co/datasets/Kevin355/Who_and_When
 
 
Research Background and Challenges
LLM-driven Multi-Agent systems have demonstrated immense potential across many domains. However, these systems are fragile; errors by a single agent, misunderstandings between agents, or mistakes in information transmission can lead to the failure of the entire task.

Currently, when a system fails, developers are often left with manual and inefficient methods for debugging:
Manual Log Archaeology : Developers must manually review lengthy interaction logs to find the source of the problem.
Reliance on Expertise : The debugging process is highly dependent on the developer’s deep understanding of the system and the task at hand.
 
This “needle in a haystack” approach to debugging is not only inefficient but also severely hinders rapid system iteration and the improvement of system reliability. There is an urgent need for an automated, systematic method to pinpoint the cause of failures, effectively bridging the gap between “evaluation results” and “system improvement.”

Core Contributions
This paper makes several groundbreaking contributions to address the challenges above:
1. Defining a New Problem: The paper is the first to formalize “automated failure attribution” as a specific research task. This task is defined by identifying the failure-responsible agent and the decisive error step that led to the task’s failure.
2. Constructing the First Benchmark Dataset: Who&When : This dataset includes a wide range of failure logs collected from 127 LLM Multi-Agent systems, which were either algorithmically generated or hand-crafted by experts to ensure realism and diversity. Each failure log is accompanied by fine-grained human annotations for:
Who: The agent responsible for the failure.
When: The specific interaction step where the decisive error occurred.
Why: A natural language explanation of the cause of the failure.

3. Exploring Initial “Automated Attribution” Methods : Using the Who&When dataset, the paper designs and assesses three distinct methods for automated failure attribution:
– All-at-Once: This method provides the LLM with the user query and the complete failure log, asking it to identify the responsible agent and the decisive error step in a single pass. While cost-effective, it may struggle to pinpoint precise errors in long contexts.
– Step-by-Step: This approach mimics manual debugging by having the LLM review the interaction log sequentially, making a judgment at each step until the error is found. It is more precise at locating the error step but incurs higher costs and risks accumulating errors.
– Binary Search: A compromise between the first two methods, this strategy repeatedly divides the log in half, using the LLM to determine which segment contains the error. It then recursively searches the identified segment, offering a balance of cost and performance.

Experimental Results and Key Findings 
Experiments were conducted in two settings: one where the LLM knows the ground truth answer to the problem the Multi-Agent system is trying to solve (With Ground Truth) and one where it does not (Without Ground Truth). The primary model used was GPT-4o, though other models were also tested. The systematic evaluation of these methods on the Who&When dataset yielded several important insights:
– A Long Way to Go: Current methods are far from perfect. Even the best-performing single method achieved an accuracy of only about 53.5% in identifying the responsible agent and a mere 14.2% in pinpointing the exact error step. Some methods performed even worse than random guessing, underscoring the difficulty of the task.
– No “All-in-One” Solution: Different methods excel at different aspects of the problem. The All-at-Once method is better at identifying “Who,” while the Step-by-Step method is more effective at determining “When.” The Binary Search method provides a middle-ground performance.
 

– Hybrid Approaches Show Promise but at a High Cost: The researchers found that combining different methods, such as using the All-at-Once approach to identify a potential agent and then applying the Step-by-Step method to find the error, can improve overall performance. However, this comes with a significant increase in computational cost.

– State-of-the-Art Models Struggle: Surprisingly, even the most advanced reasoning models, like OpenAI o1 and DeepSeek R1, find this task challenging.- This h…

Konten dipersingkat otomatis.

🔗 Sumber: syncedreview.com

📌 TOPINDIATOURS Update ai: Elon Musk Is Fuming That Workers Keep Ditching His Comp

As you’re probably well aware by now, Elon Musk and Sam Altman have a long history. The two cofounded OpenAI back in 2015 as a nonprofit with an ostensibly altruist mission. But then Musk stormed out of the company three years later. Reportedly, it was because he beefed with Altman’s leadership.

There’s been bad blood between them ever since — a lot of which has been playing out in the courts.

In 2024, Musk sued OpenAI and Altman for violating its founding principles by pursuing profits over the public good. As the lawsuit dragged on, he then tried to get a federal judge to block OpenAI’s restructuring from a non-profit into a purely for-profit company. The judge swatted down Musk’s plea, but OpenAI has since given up on becoming an out-and-out for-profit. It’s now trying to convert into a public benefit corporation, but with similar struggles that are tying up billions of dollars in cash it needs from its investors.

For whatever reason, Musk dropped the original suit — but is now suing Altman and his company again for basically the same reason. 

If that series of moves from Musk reek of jealousy that his friend-turned-foe now commands the most important AI company in the world which is being valued at half a trillion dollars, a brand new lawsuit filed this week by Musk’s company xAI seems driven by rage that Altman keeps poaching his talent.

As The Guardian reports, the suit filed in a California court accuses OpenAI of a “deeply troubling pattern” of hiring former xAI employees to gain access to its trade secrets, including the source code behind its prized chatbot Grok. Seemingly, OpenAI is just dying to know how to make an AI that goes haywire and starts calling itself “MechaHitler.”

“OpenAI is targeting those individuals with knowledge of xAI’s key technologies and business plans, including xAI’s source code and its operational advantages in launching data centers, then inducing those employees to breach their confidentiality and other obligations to xAI through unlawful means,” the lawsuit alleges, per the newspaper.

Hiring a rival’s ex-employees isn’t illegal in itself, but it is at least one way of conducting corporate espionage. An aggrieved corporation would have to prove that there’s a concerted, systematic effort to snipe a rival’s talent, however, which is what Musk and xAI are alleging.

The allegations emerged from xAI investigating its former engineer Xuechen Li for stealing trade secrets. Amid that probe, Musk’s company says it uncovered a “deliberate scheme” to steal these secrets by hiring eight former xAI employees, per The Information.

Along with Li, OpenAI also poached former xAI engineer Jimmy Fraiture and another senior finance executive, the company alleged.

That accused finance executive didn’t take kindly to the allegations. When Musk’s lawyer sent them an email accusing them of breaching their confidentiality agreement, according to a screenshot in the lawsuit, they had a one sentence rebuttal.

“Suck my dick,” the employee responded.

In not quite those same words, OpenAI also denied the allegations, calling it the “latest chapter in Mr Musk’s ongoing harassment.” Along with the lawsuits already mentioned, Musk is also suing OpenAI and Apple, accusing the two companies last month of colluding to keep ChatGPT at the top of the App Store while stopping its Grok app from climbing the charts.

While we wouldn’t put it past OpenAI, a company that so nakedly dropped its open-source and non-profit act the second it smelled Microsoft money, of engaging in nefarious practices, it’s pretty rich for Musk to be mad about his employees fleeing to competitors, innocently or otherwise. He’s notorious for rage-firing employees on the spot and treating the ones that don’t worship the ground he walks on poorly. He’s conducted brutal layoffs at his social media platform X — Grok’s stomping ground lately — and recently fired 500 xAI employees, replacing a Musk-company veteran in charge of the chatbot’s data annotation team with a literal college kid.

Big picture-wise, if the major AI firms that are all running up against the same wall in trying to improve their constantly hallucinating tech are just hiring each other’s cast-offs, if you have to wonder if the industry’s going nowhere fast.

More on AI: Researchers Just Found Something Extremely Alarming About AI’s Power Usage

The post Elon Musk Is Fuming That Workers Keep Ditching His Company for OpenAI appeared first on Futurism.

🔗 Sumber: futurism.com