Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as central planners in Vision-and-Language Navigation (VLN), yet their complexity increasingly obscures their internal decision-making. Existing interpretability methods typically isolate temporal criticality from feature salience, creating an alignment gap and failing to account for the behavioral instability of black-box agents. To address this, we propose DEFT, a unified dual-view framework that demystifies agent behavior by jointly analyzing when a decision is pivotal and what visual evidence grounds it. Featuring a dual-head architecture with a shared latent representation, DEFT employs a Mask Head for counterfactual-based criticality detection and an Action Head that leverages an ensemble of surrogates to recover robust visual cues. Extensive experiments on MatterPort3D across three LLM-based agents demonstrate that DEFT outperforms baselines in both temporal and feature fidelity. User studies further validate its utility, showing 78% alignment with human intuition.

Embodied agents in safety-critical applications such as Vision-Language Navigation (VLN) rely on multiple interdependent capabilities (e.g., perception, memory, planning, decision), making failures difficult to localize and attribute. Existing testing methods are largely system-level and provide limited insight into which capability deficiencies cause task failures. We propose a capability-oriented testing approach that enables failure detection and attribution by combining (1) adaptive test case generation via seed selection and mutation, (2) capability oracles for identifying capability-specific errors, and (3) a feedback mechanism that attributes failures to capabilities and guides further test generation. Experiments show that our method discovers more failure cases and more accurately pinpoints capability-level deficiencies than state-of-the-art baselines, providing more interpretable and actionable guidance for improving embodied agents.

Failure attribution, i.e., identifying the responsible agent and decisive step of a failure, is particularly challenging in LLM-based multi-agent systems (MAS) due to their natural-language reasoning, nondeterministic outputs, and intricate interaction dynamics. A reliable benchmark is therefore essential to guide and evaluate attribution techniques. Yet existing benchmarks rely on partially observable traces that capture only agent outputs, omitting the inputs and context that developers actually use when debugging. We argue that attribution should be studied under full execution observability, aligning with real-world developer-facing scenarios where complete traces, rather than only outputs, are accessible for diagnosis. To this end, we introduce TraceElephant, a benchmark designed for failure attribution with full execution traces and reproducible environments. We then systematically evaluate failure attribution techniques across various configurations. Specifically, full traces improve attribution accuracy by up to 76.5% over a partial-observation counterpart, confirming that missing inputs obscure many failure causes. TraceElephant provides a foundation for follow-up failure attribution research, promoting evaluation practices that reflect real-world debugging and supporting the development of more transparent MASs.