📌 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 Breaking ai: Self-improving language models are becoming reality w

Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) are gaining renewed attention for developing and open sourcing a technique that allows large language models (LLMs) — like those underpinning ChatGPT and most modern AI chatbots — to improve themselves by generating synthetic data to fine-tune upon.

The technique, known as SEAL (Self-Adapting LLMs), was first described in a paper published back in June and covered by VentureBeat at the time.

A significantly expanded and updated version of the paper was released last month, as well as open source code posted on Github (under an MIT License, allowing for commercial and enterprise usage), and is making new waves among AI power users on the social network X this week.

SEAL allows LLMs to autonomously generate and apply their own fine-tuning strategies. Unlike conventional models that rely on fixed external data and human-crafted optimization pipelines, SEAL enables models to evolve by producing their own synthetic training data and corresponding optimization directives.

The development comes from a team affiliated with MIT’s Improbable AI Lab, including Adam Zweiger, Jyothish Pari, Han Guo, Ekin Akyürek, Yoon Kim, and Pulkit Agrawal. Their research was recently presented at the 39th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2025).

Background: From “Beyond Static AI” to Self-Adaptive Systems

Earlier this year, VentureBeat first reported on SEAL as an early-stage framework that allowed language models to generate and train on their own synthetic data — a potential remedy for the stagnation of pretrained models once deployed.

At that stage, SEAL was framed as a proof-of-concept that could let enterprise AI agents continuously learn in dynamic environments without manual retraining.

Since then, the research has advanced considerably. The new version expands on the prior framework by demonstrating that SEAL’s self-adaptation ability scales with model size, integrates reinforcement learning more effectively to reduce catastrophic forgetting, and formalizes SEAL’s dual-loop structure (inner supervised fine-tuning and outer reinforcement optimization) for reproducibility.

The updated paper also introduces evaluations across different prompting formats, improved stability during learning cycles, and a discussion of practical deployment challenges at inference time.

Addressing the Limitations of Static Models

While LLMs have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in text generation and understanding, their adaptation to new tasks or knowledge is often manual, brittle, or dependent on context.

SEAL challenges this status quo by equipping models with the ability to generate what the authors call “self-edits” — natural language outputs that specify how the model should update its weights.

These self-edits may take the form of reformulated information, logical implications, or tool configurations for augmentation and training. Once generated, the model fine-tunes itself based on these edits. The process is guided by reinforcement learning, where the reward signal comes from improved performance on a downstream task.

The design mimics how human learners might rephrase or reorganize study materials to better internalize information. This restructuring of knowledge before assimilation serves as a key advantage over models that passively consume new data “as-is.”

Performance Across Tasks

SEAL has been tested across two main domains: knowledge incorporation and few-shot learning.

In the knowledge incorporation setting, the researchers evaluated how well a model could internalize new factual content from passages similar to those in the SQuAD dataset, a benchmark reading comprehension dataset introduced by Stanford University in 2016, consisting of over 100,000 crowd-sourced question–answer pairs based on Wikipedia articles (Rajpurkar et al., 2016).

Rather than fine-tuning directly on passage text, the model generated synthetic implications of the passage and then fine-tuned on them.

After two rounds of reinforcement learning, the model improved question-answering accuracy from 33.5% to 47.0% on a no-context version of SQuAD — surpassing results obtained using synthetic data generated by GPT-4.1.

In the few-shot learning setting, SEAL was evaluated using a subset of the ARC benchmark, where tasks require reasoning from only a few examples. Here, SEAL generated self-edits specifying data augmentations and hyperparameters.

After reinforcement learning, the success rate in correctly solving held-out tasks jumped to 72.5%, up from 20% using self-edits generated without reinforcement learning. Models that relied solely on in-context learning without any adaptation scored 0%.

Technical Framework

SEAL operates using a two-loop structure: an inner loop performs supervised fine-tuning based on the self-edit, while an outer loop uses reinforcement learning to refine the policy that generates those self-edits.

The reinforcement learning algorithm used is based on ReSTEM, which combines sampling with filtered behavior cloning. During training, only self-edits that lead to performance improvements are reinforced. This approach effectively teaches the model which kinds of edits are most beneficial for learning.

For efficiency, SEAL applies LoRA-based fine-tuning rather than full parameter updates, enabling rapid experimentation and low-cost adaptation.

Strengths and Limitations

The researchers report that SEAL can produce high-utility training data with minimal supervision, outperforming even large external models like GPT-4.1 in specific tasks.

They also demonstrate that SEAL generalizes beyond its original setup: it continues to perform well when scaling from single-pass updates to multi-document continued pretraining scenarios.

However, the framework is not without limitations. One issue is catastrophic forgetting, where updates to incorporate new information can degrade performance on previously learned tasks.

In response to this concern, co-author Jyo Pari told VentureBeat via email that reinforcement learning (RL) appears to mitigate forgetting more effectively than standard supervised fine-tuning (SFT), citing a recent paper on the topic. He added that combining this insight with SEAL could lead to new variants where SEAL learns not just training data, but reward functions.

Another challenge is computational overhead: evaluating each self-edit requires fine-tuning and performance testing, which can take 30–45 seconds per edit — significantly more than standard reinforcement learning tasks.

As Jyo explained, “Training SEAL is non-trivial because it requires 2 loops of optimization, an outer RL one and an inner SFT one. At inference time, updating model weights will also require new systems infrastructure.” He emphasized the need for future research into deployment systems as a critical path to making SEAL practical.

Additionally, SEAL’s current design assumes the presence of paired tasks and reference answers for every context, limiting its direct applicability to unlabeled corpora. However, Jyo clarified that as long as there is a downstream task with a computable reward, SEAL can be trained to adapt accordingly—even in safety-critical domains. In principle, a SEAL-trained model could learn to avoid training on harmful or malicious inputs if guided by the appropriate reward signal.

AI Community Reactions

The AI research and bui…

Konten dipersingkat otomatis.

🔗 Sumber: venturebeat.com