Paper Reading AI Learner

Why Do Agent Teams Fail Across Boundaries? A Failure Taxonomy for Agent-to-Agent Systems with Private States

2026-10-15 17:38:29
Sarath Shekkizhar, Prathyusha Jwalapuram, Zixuan Ke, Vaidehi Patil, Jiayu Wang, Srijan Bansal, Trong Huy Nguyen, Dingfeng Jiang, Dongqi Liu, Ruochen Zhao, Wei Lu, Giuseppe Carenini, Mohit Bansal, Silvio Savarese, Shafiq Joty

Abstract

Agents are increasingly interacting with other agents that act for different principals (people or organizations on whose behalf they work), such as a buyer's personal agent negotiating with an enterprise's seller agent. In such agent-to-agent (A2A) scenarios, each agent has its own environment and holds information and authority that the other cannot see. Moreover, the interests of each agent may be aligned (cooperative), partly aligned (mixed-motive), or opposed (competitive). Existing multi-agent system failure studies assume one orchestrator, shared workspace, or single principal. We ask how A2A systems fail when these assumptions are removed. We study more than 2,500 recorded runs of A2A systems built from different agent harnesses and models, spanning 488 scenarios across eight families (legal, CRM, security, commerce, etc.). From these traces, we derive $A^2$-Failures, a taxonomy of 20 A2A failure modes in four categories: (i) discovery and delegation, (ii) grounding and record consistency, (iii) verification, and (iv) conduct and fidelity. Three findings hold across every harness, model, and scenario studied: (1) discovery and interaction are driven by the phrasing of the task rather than the availability of peer agents; (2) no agent verifies a peer's factual claim on its own initiative, so an A2A system inherits the reliability of its least reliable participant unless the protocol or mechanism performs the check; and (3) the aggregate outcome score credits the agent completing the task while staying blind to the coordination, verification, and conduct failures beneath it, so A2A systems must be evaluated per agent, against each agent's own principal. We release the run logs behind the taxonomy at this https URL.

Abstract (translated)

URL

https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.19342

PDF

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2610.19342.pdf


Tags
3D Action Action_Localization Action_Recognition Activity Adversarial Agent Attention Autonomous Bert Boundary_Detection Caption Chat Classification CNN Compressive_Sensing Contour Contrastive_Learning Deep_Learning Denoising Detection Dialog Diffusion Drone Dynamic_Memory_Network Edge_Detection Embedding Embodied Emotion Enhancement Face Face_Detection Face_Recognition Facial_Landmark Few-Shot Gait_Recognition GAN Gaze_Estimation Gesture Gradient_Descent Handwriting Human_Parsing Image_Caption Image_Classification Image_Compression Image_Enhancement Image_Generation Image_Matting Image_Retrieval Inference Inpainting Intelligent_Chip Knowledge Knowledge_Graph Language_Model LLM Matching Medical Memory_Networks Multi_Modal Multi_Task NAS NMT Object_Detection Object_Tracking OCR Ontology Optical_Character Optical_Flow Optimization Person_Re-identification Point_Cloud Portrait_Generation Pose Pose_Estimation Prediction QA Quantitative Quantitative_Finance Quantization Re-identification Recognition Recommendation Reconstruction Regularization Reinforcement_Learning Relation Relation_Extraction Represenation Represenation_Learning Restoration Review RNN Robot Salient Scene_Classification Scene_Generation Scene_Parsing Scene_Text Segmentation Self-Supervised Semantic_Instance_Segmentation Semantic_Segmentation Semi_Global Semi_Supervised Sence_graph Sentiment Sentiment_Classification Sketch SLAM Sparse Speech Speech_Recognition Style_Transfer Summarization Super_Resolution Surveillance Survey Text_Classification Text_Generation Time_Series Tracking Transfer_Learning Transformer Unsupervised Video_Caption Video_Classification Video_Indexing Video_Prediction Video_Retrieval Visual_Relation VQA Weakly_Supervised Zero-Shot