Last Step Matters: Early Uncertainty Cannot Predict Failure in Long-Horizon Agents

arXiv:2608.29685v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Early failure prediction is important for long-horizon agents, as it enables timely intervention and can reduce inference and tool-use costs. Uncertainty quantification, such as verbal confidence and perplexity, offers a promising approach to detecting agent failures; however, it has not been explored whether these signals retain their discriminative power during the intermediate stages of long-horizon execution. We evaluate mainstream uncertainty signals on deep-research tasks and find that verbal confidence reliably distinguishes failures at trajectory completion, achieving a mean AUROC of 0.85, whereas all evaluated signals offer limited predictive value earlier in execution, with none exceeding a mean AUROC of 0.60 at 50% trajectory progress. We identify an underlying mechanism explaining this gap: path switching, where agents frequently abandon their current search direction in-trajectory, breaking the link between early signal and final outcome. These findings challenge the assumption that intermediate uncertainty can reliably guide early intervention. They also motivate a practical recommendation for agent harnesses in deep-research settings: use final-step confidence to decide whether to restart, an approach that our experiments find more effective than in-trajectory intervention.

Abstract:Early failure prediction is important for long-horizon agents, as it enables timely intervention and can reduce inference and tool-use costs. Uncertainty quantification, such as verbal confidence and perplexity, offers a promising approach to detecting agent failures; however, it has not been explored whether these signals retain their discriminative power during the intermediate stages of long-horizon execution. We evaluate mainstream uncertainty signals on deep-research tasks and find that verbal confidence reliably distinguishes failures at trajectory completion, achieving a mean AUROC of 0.85, whereas all evaluated signals offer limited predictive value earlier in execution, with none exceeding a mean AUROC of 0.60 at 50% trajectory progress. We identify an underlying mechanism explaining this gap: path switching, where agents frequently abandon their current search direction in-trajectory, breaking the link between early signal and final outcome. These findings challenge the assumption that intermediate uncertainty can reliably guide early intervention. They also motivate a practical recommendation for agent harnesses in deep-research settings: use final-step confidence to decide whether to restart, an approach that our experiments find more effective than in-trajectory intervention.

Machine Learning (cs.LG)

arXiv:2608.29685 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2608.29685v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.29685 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

aiqbench analysis

Last Step Matters: Early Uncertainty Cannot Predict Failure in Long-Horizon Agents

Related coverage