Beyond pass@1: A Reliability Science Framework for Long-Horizon LLM Agents

Production deployments of large language model (LLM) agents remain unreliable on long, multi-step workflows even as benchmark success rates climb steadily. We argue this gap is largely an artifact of task horizon: benchmarks are dominated by short-to-medium horizons where success remains high, while production workloads demand an order of magnitude more dependent steps. We measure the effect directly, characterizing the shape of agent degradation and disentangling its cause across a large controlled study spanning nine models, six open models from 1.2B to 671B parameters, and three deployed proprietary systems; four task families, including a genuinely agentic tool-use loop; five horizons; and three context regimes. Task success follows a geometric law governed by a single per-step reliability parameter, which rises with model scale but saturates well below 1 even for the strongest models, guaranteeing eventual collapse at sufficiently long horizons. The effect is sharpest on the agentic task, where every model tested, including widely deployed systems, falls from near-perfect success to near zero within sixteen steps of (n=10,664 analyzed trajectories. Degradation is driven by step count rather than context length: bounding the context window steepens decay rather than easing it (logit slope -0.69 vs. -0.44), p=3x10-6), contradicting a lost-in-the-middle explanation and warning against a common production shortcut. Projecting measured reliability onto representative benchmark horizons quantifies a substantial gap between benchmark and production conditions, from 0.42 at GAIA-length horizons to 0.24 at hundred-step production horizons. For teams responsible for agent orchestration and reliability at scale, these results argue for horizon-aware evaluation and reliability budgeting in place of aggregate pass-rate metrics. Code, prompts, seeds, and raw trajectories are released.

Agent evaluations are increasingly used to compare LLMs and inform deployment decisions, yet ranks can reflect not only the model but also the effects of the evaluation conditions such as the scaffolds or tasks. This makes reliability claim-dependent: an evaluation that reliably ranks deployed systems may not reliably rank underlying models. We ask which conclusions current agent evaluations reliably support and what additional evaluation would improve them. We develop a Bayesian variance-decomposition framework for sparse, imbalanced agent leaderboards and apply it to 22 benchmarks from the Holistic Agent Leaderboard and Harbor Index. The framework separates signal, performance differences relevant to the intended claim, from noise, irrelevant variation that can still change rankings. We find: (1) Reliability depends on the measurement goal. Fixed model-scaffold systems are ranked reliably (0.935-0.994), while underlying-model reliability is substantially lower (0.148-0.841). (2) Scaffold choice can change conclusions. Inter-scaffold reliability measures whether scaffolds preserve model rankings, showing that scaffold effects vary substantially across evaluations. (3) More tasks cannot resolve all uncertainty. Even infinitely many similarly constructed tasks improve model-ranking reliability of a benchmark by at most 0.097 when uncertainty is dominated by limited scaffold coverage. (4) Pooling diverse benchmarks can improve cross-task rankings at lower cost. For rankings across diverse agentic tasks, pooling benchmarks raises projected reliability from 0.44 to 0.75 at the same task budget and can reduce projected cost by up to 83%. Evaluation design should follow the intended claim: identify what a score or ranking should mean, diagnose what limits its reliability, and spend evaluation budget on the sources of uncertainty that matter.

Why do language agents fail on tasks they are capable of solving? We argue that many such failures are reliability failures caused by stochastic drift from a task's latent solution structure, not capability failures. Every well-defined tool-use task imposes a canonical solution path (i.e., a convergent set of tool invocations shared across successful runs) and agent success depends critically on whether a trajectory stays within this path's operating envelope. We establish this causally using a natural experiment that holds model capability and task difficulty fixed by construction. We analyze trajectories from the Toolathlon benchmark: 22 frontier models each attempt 108 real-world tool-use tasks across 3 independent runs, yielding 515 model$\times$task units where the same model succeeds on some runs and fails on others due to LLM sampling stochasticity alone. Within these units, successful runs adhere significantly more closely to the canonical solution path than failed runs ($+$0.060 Jaccard, $p<0.0001$, $n=488$ units, 95% CI [+0.043, +0.077]). This result survives six robustness checks including cross-model-family leave-one-out validation. Critically, the causal mechanism is gradual and self-reinforcing: the adherence gap is statistically indistinguishable from zero through the first 50% of the trajectory, ruling out early-branching selection bias, and each off-canonical tool call raises the probability that the next call is also off-canonical by 22.7 percentage points ($\hatβ=+0.227$, $p<0.0001$), more than doubling the baseline rate. These findings imply that agent reliability cannot be improved by capability scaling alone, but offer a highly actionable intervention: a simple monitor that restarts the bottom tercile of runs based on mid-trajectory canonical adherence lifts success rates by $+$8.8 percentage points among intervened runs.