Researcher profile

Gou Tan

Gou Tan contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

A Survey on Failure Analysis and Fault Injection in AI Systems

The rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has led to its integration into various areas, especially with Large Language Models (LLMs) significantly enhancing capabilities in Artificial Intelligence Generated Content (AIGC). However, the complexity of AI systems has also exposed their vulnerabilities, necessitating robust methods for failure analysis (FA) and fault injection (FI) to ensure resilience and reliability. Despite the importance of these techniques, there lacks a comprehensive review of FA and FI methodologies in AI systems. This study fills this gap by presenting a detailed survey of existing FA and FI approaches across six layers of AI systems. We systematically analyze 160 papers and repositories to answer three research questions including (1) what are the prevalent failures in AI systems, (2) what types of faults can current FI tools simulate, (3) what gaps exist between the simulated faults and real-world failures. Our findings reveal a taxonomy of AI system failures, assess the capabilities of existing FI tools, and highlight discrepancies between real-world and simulated failures. Moreover, this survey contributes to the field by providing a framework for fault diagnosis, evaluating the state-of-the-art in FI, and identifying areas for improvement in FI techniques to enhance the resilience of AI systems.

preprint2026arXiv

LIDL: LLM Integration Defect Localization via Knowledge Graph-Enhanced Multi-Agent Analysis

LLM-integrated software, which embeds or interacts with large language models (LLMs) as functional components, exhibits probabilistic and context-dependent behaviors that fundamentally differ from those of traditional software. This shift introduces a new category of integration defects that arise not only from code errors but also from misaligned interactions among LLM-specific artifacts, including prompts, API calls, configurations, and model outputs. However, existing defect localization techniques are ineffective at identifying these LLM-specific integration defects because they fail to capture cross-layer dependencies across heterogeneous artifacts, cannot exploit incomplete or misleading error traces, and lack semantic reasoning capabilities for identifying root causes. To address these challenges, we propose LIDL, a multi-agent framework for defect localization in LLM-integrated software. LIDL (1) constructs a code knowledge graph enriched with LLM-aware annotations that represent interaction boundaries across source code, prompts, and configuration files, (2) fuses three complementary sources of error evidence inferred by LLMs to surface candidate defect locations, and (3) applies context-aware validation that uses counterfactual reasoning to distinguish true root causes from propagated symptoms. We evaluate LIDL on 146 real-world defect instances collected from 105 GitHub repositories and 16 agent-based systems. The results show that LIDL significantly outperforms five state-of-the-art baselines across all metrics, achieving a Top-3 accuracy of 0.64 and a MAP of 0.48, which represents a 64.1% improvement over the best-performing baseline. Notably, LIDL achieves these gains while reducing cost by 92.5%, demonstrating both high accuracy and cost efficiency.