cs.AIJul 27, 2026

When Do Agent Loops Mistake Stagnation for Progress? Self-Evaluation Bias and Externally Grounded Verification in Long-Running Autonomous LLM Agent Loops

Authors: Hyundoo Park, Byungho Choi

Organizations: AsyncSite

Abstract

Long-running autonomous agents plan, act, and judge their own completion without human intervention. When an agent grades its own work, self-evaluation bias takes hold: plausible changes are accepted as progress while real-world outcomes stagnate or regress. We name this failure mode the progress mirage and show, with controlled measurement, that it is a question of what the evaluator is grounded in. We built a testbed that holds the agent and its tool surface fixed and manipulates only the information-channel type of the evaluator that gates the loop. A world-state oracle, unfakeable in principle, is enforced by container and network isolation and verified at every run. Across 54 cycles a frontier agent claimed improvement every time, yet 56 percent had a measured delta of zero or below. Self-report was thus uninformative, and the self-verdict gate degenerated into accept-all, eroding the best deployed state it had reached by 19 percent. Even the strongest in-band judge, reading the full artifact text, the change diff, and its own verdict history, accepted cycles of which 44 percent were real-world regressions and rejected 38 percent of real improvements; the preregistered adversarial hypothesis that a strong judge closes the gap was rejected. On a boundary task whose success specification is verifiable from the artifact itself, the same judge's mirage vanished to zero and the gap collapsed within the registered threshold, showing that the gap depends on where the success signal resides. A sign-only variant returning only the acceptance verdict kept real-world output similar to full feedback (110.0 versus 113.0), locating the benefit in the gate's grounding rather than in feedback content. For open-ended objectives whose success signal lives outside the transcript, scaling up the judge is not enough; out-of-band evaluation with real-world access is a structural requirement.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Sep 15, 2026cs.LG

Locating Hidden Failures Makes Long-Horizon Agents More Reliable

As AI agents take on long, autonomous tasks, we increasingly oversee rather than perform the work, yet we still judge them almost entirely by whether they finally succeed. An outcome cannot reveal where a run went wrong, whether the agent recovered, or the irreversible harm it caused along the way, and where long-horizon agents fail remains unmapped. We study 25182518 agent trajectories across software engineering, computer use, and science, close to real deployment, and classify 69676967 mistakes into 7878 failure types. Failure follows a recurring signature: after its first mistake an agent often fails to recover and rarely catches the error itself, so the run continues unchecked while still looking correct; whether an agent recovers depends on the task and the environment's feedback, not on the agent framework running it. Long-horizon agents can do real harm on the way to a passing result: even runs scored as solved delete data, corrupt systems, or fabricate success rather than earning it. We release these human-verified annotations as Traverse, a benchmark on which six frontier judges struggle to locate failure regardless of scale: even the strongest correctly identifies the first mistake in fewer than a third of runs. Yet Scout, a 44B verifier we trained, locates failure far better than these judges and transfers to domains it never saw. Used at test time to select among an agent's candidate runs, it raises task success above the agent's own single-attempt performance, without retraining the agent. By making failure cheap to locate and correct, this work is a foundation for more trustworthy long-horizon agents that learn from their own mistakes, and a practical path to overseeing increasingly autonomous AI.
Salman Rahman, Yubin Kim, Mihir Parmar +15
Long-Horizon AgentsTool Failures
AskPDF
Aug 4, 2026cs.AI

The LLM Proposes, the Executive Disposes: A Self-Verifying Agent Instrument that Dissociates Commitment Drift from Binding Drift in Long-Horizon Agents

How do you verify a long-horizon agent when its own state and self-reports are exactly what you cannot trust? We present an agent instrument built so that verification is structural rather than post-hoc. A deterministic Executive owns all belief; a language model may only file typed proposals, and a claim is admitted only when a prediction pre-registered before acting is matched against observation by code. Two properties make the instrument a verifier of its own science, not just of the agent: every run invalidates itself when per-organ write-error, render-size, or salted-canary-echo floors are breached (four of the first eight architecture runs were invalidated, each localizing a real defect); and a render-invisible shadow reference compiles the plan the full system would have committed in every ablation cell, so drift metrics are defined even where the mechanism under test has been removed. Using this instrument we report a clean, single-variable result on a failure every long-horizon agent suffers: ablating the commitment mechanism flips goal-abandonment from 0.00 to 1.00 while binding error stays flat at 0.00 (three seeds per cell, up to 394 reference beats per run, every run gated valid). The binding channel, by contrast, does not reappear as per-beat drift when its repair is ablated -- because binding is code-owned, the failure class is structurally absorbed, its only residue appearing one layer upstream as a collapse in hypothesis formation. We report these under full disclosure that task efficacy is null (zero level completions across 52 gated runs on ARC-AGI-3), pre-registered as a structural defeater. The contribution is a verification methodology for agent development and the drift decomposition it makes measurable.
Mohsen Arjmandi
Long-Horizon AgentsVerifierDeterministicHypothesis
AskPDF
Jun 22, 2026cs.AI

GroundEval: A Deterministic Replacement for LLM-as-Judge in Stateful Agent Evaluation

Before letting an agent operate over real context, can you prove it used the right evidence? GroundEval turns that question into a deterministic test of what the agent searched, fetched, cited, and was permitted to access. In one case study, two frontier LLM judges scored a plausible agent response 0.85 and higher. But the trace told a different story: the agent had never retrieved the artifact its answer depended on, yielding a GroundEval score of 0.000. We introduce GroundEval, a judge-free framework for evaluating agents against grounded, time-bounded, and access-controlled evidence. GroundEval uses a domain configuration to generate questions, lets the agent choose how to answer, and then scores both the final answer and the recorded trajectory that produced it. The benchmark targets three failures that LLM-as-judge evaluation struggles to detect: whether an agent checked before claiming absence, reasoned only from evidence available to the actor at the relevant time, and used the correct causal mechanism rather than a plausible one. These correspond to three tracks: Silence, Perspective, and Counterfactual. GroundEval exposes when plausible answers rest on invalid evidence paths, and produces structured per-question diagnostics that pair tool activity with the agent's turn-level narration, making each score inspectable rather than merely reported. Our case studies suggest this failure mode is common rather than exceptional, one that final-answer and judge-based evaluation cannot detect by construction.
Jeffrey Flynt
Agentic EvaluationsLlm-As-A-JudgePhysical PlausibilityDeterministic
AskPDF