We introduce TableVista, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating foundation models in multimodal table reasoning under visual and structural complexity. TableVista consists of 3,000 high-quality table reasoning problems, where each instance is expanded into 10 distinct visual variants through our multi-style rendering and transformation pipeline. This process encompasses diverse scenario styles, robustness perturbations, and vision-only configurations, culminating in 30,000 multimodal samples for a multi-dimensional evaluation. We conduct an extensive evaluation of 29 state-of-the-art open-source and proprietary foundation models on TableVista. Through comprehensive quantitative and qualitative analysis, we find that while evaluated models remain largely stable across diverse rendering styles, they exhibit pronounced performance degradation on complex structural layouts and vision-only settings, revealing that current models struggle to maintain reasoning consistency when structural complexity combines with visually integrated presentations. These findings highlight critical gaps in current multimodal capabilities, providing insights for advancing more robust and reliable table understanding models.

Large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems have experienced rapid growth in recent years. Despite their promise, such systems remain fragile, frequently exhibiting reasoning and coordination errors that can lead to system-level failures. Failure attribution in such systems relies on tracing natural language interactions among agents to identify the decisive error, which refers to the earliest action whose correction can reverse system failure. There are two key challenges: 1) Shallow attribution: Existing methods often capture only minor deviations, such as incomplete retrievals or formatting errors, which verification mechanisms can correct, while missing the decisive cause of system failure. 2) Contextual degradation: As the length of the system traces increases, the model’s reasoning ability rapidly deteriorates. To address these challenges, we propose DCFA, a training-free framework for failure attribution. DCFA integrates a global module that constructs structured causal-inspired dependency graphs from system traces to identify the initial decisive error, and a local module that applies local counterfactual-inspired reasoning to refine causal-inspired attribution. Experiments on the Who&When benchmark across six LLMs show that DCFA improves step-level accuracy by up to 8.27% over state-of-the-art baselines.