Model or Harness? An Interaction-Centric Taxonomy for Localizing Agent Failures
arXiv AIArchived Aug 03, 2026✓ Full text saved
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,
Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary· Claude Sonnet
Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence
[Submitted on 30 Jul 2026]
Model or Harness? An Interaction-Centric Taxonomy for Localizing Agent Failures
Harsh Raj, Vipul Gupta, Anas Mahmoud, Razvan-Gabriel Dumitru, Darvin Yi, Aakash Sabharwal, Yunzhong He
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
κ=0.76
against human category labels, suggesting that the categories capture shared structure rather than annotator-specific preferences.
Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
Cite as: 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
Submission history
From: Harsh Raj [view email]
[v1] Thu, 30 Jul 2026 19:55:14 UTC (289 KB)
Access Paper:
HTML (experimental)
view license
Current browse context:
cs.AI
< prev | next >
new | recent | 2026-07
Change to browse by:
cs
References & Citations
NASA ADS
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
Export BibTeX Citation
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)