LLM agents are predominantly benchmarked on short, single-task trajectories, yet real deployments run for hours under contention, surfacing a different class of failures. We use the Clinical Environment Simulator (CES), in which an agent manages an entire emergency-department shift under continuous time and resource pressure, as a testbed: long-horizon execution failures manifest measurably in a single rollout under structured, multi-dimensional grading. On CES, current agents reach the correct diagnosis in most cases yet fail to deliver complete and timely critical actions, revealing an execution gap. We attribute this gap to three long-horizon failure modes, each operationalized as a per-trace counter: instruction-adherence drift, treatment incompleteness, and a severity-equity gap in timeliness. We then introduce Asclepius, an adaptive agent scaffolding with a self-evolving harness that rewrites the operating manual between shifts from trace-level feedback, an externalized clinical skills library for high-stakes regimen knowledge, and three isolated subagents that partition per-turn decisions across the patient queue. On held-out batches never observed during harness evolution, Asclepius improves critical-action correctness by 22% (p = 0.024) over a strong baseline agent framework while preserving diagnostic accuracy, with consistent gains across five LLM judges from three model families; on the full ten-batch set, improvements reach 25% on critical actions and 13% on timeliness. The three failure modes form a coupled bottleneck: decisive reductions appear only when all three components act together.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of Asclepius. Two coupled loops wrap a baseline agent. Within a shift (inner loop), the Main Agent uses an MCP tool interface, a clinical skills library, and three isolated subagents. Across shifts (outer loop), a proposer agent reads the shift trace and rewrites the operating manual for the next shift.
Configuration
Overall
Diagnosis
Critical Actions
Timeliness
Disposition
Codex (raw)
2.74
3.74
1.59
1.58
4.03
Gemini (raw)
2.06
2.47
1.43
1.42
2.93
Claude Code (raw)
3.52
4.22
2.69
2.65
4.53
Baseline framework
3.80
4.39
2.94
3.34
4.52
Asclepius
4.10
4.38
3.67
3.79
4.54
Δ vs. baseline
+0.30 **
−0.02 ns
+0.73 ***
+0.45 **
+0.03 ns
Table 1: Main results across all ten patient batches. Mean scores (out of 5) for the three raw single-agent variants, the baseline agent framework, and Asclepius (harness + skills + acting subagents). Scores pool the six search batches, over which the operating manual was evolved, with the four held-out batches. Significance for the Δ row is from a patient-level mixed-effects model, BH-FDR corrected across all 20 system-by-dimension tests (*: p<0.05 , **: p<0.01 , ***: p<0.001 , ns: not significant). Bold marks the best score in each column.
Dimension
Δ
p
Critical Actions
+0.625
0.024 *
Timeliness
+0.312
ns
Overall
+0.193
ns
Table 2: Held-out significance (batches 7–10, n=48 ). Mixed-effects mean differences of Asclepius vs. the baseline framework, fit on the held-out batches alone. Diagnosis and disposition are unchanged (both ns).
Judge
Δ Overall
Δ Critical Actions
Δ Timeliness
Δ Diagnosis
Δ Disposition
GPT-4.1 (primary)
+0.30 **
+0.73 ***
+0.45 **
−0.02 ns
+0.03 ns
Claude Sonnet 4.5
+0.30 *
+0.65 ***
+0.52 **
−0.04 ns
+0.09 ns
Claude Sonnet 5
+0.36 **
+0.76 ***
+0.72 ***
−0.02 ns
−0.03 ns
Gemini 3.1 Pro
+0.30 *
+0.67 ***
+0.67 ***
−0.02 ns
−0.12 ns
GPT-5
+0.31 **
+0.65 ***
+0.71 ***
−0.05 ns
−0.09 ns
Table 3: Multi-judge validation. Δ = Asclepius − Baseline under each of the five judges. (*: p<0.05 , **: p<0.01 , ***: p<0.001 , ns: not significant).
Figure 2: Component ablation across all ten patient batches. Per-dimension scores for the baseline framework, baseline + skills, baseline + subagents, baseline + harness, and Asclepius (Full). The baseline, +S , and +SA use the hand-crafted manual M0 ; +H and full Asclepius use the evolved manual M∗ .
Figure 3: Per-component reduction of targeted failure modes. Three panels: (left) naked-disposition rate early (hours 0–2) versus late (hours 4–6); (middle) zero-treatment rate among correctly-diagnosed patients; (right) timeliness gap between non-severe and severe patients. Each compares the baseline, single-component variants ( +S , +SA , +H ), and full Asclepius. Lower is better.
Figure 4: Self-evolving harness search trajectory. Best-so-far mean scores on the six search batches across 10 proposer iterations, one line per CES dimension. v7 is selected on overall search-batch score and used in Asclepius; v6–v8 form a high-performing plateau.
Variant
Overall
Dx
CA
Time
Disp
Advisory
4.00
4.39
3.41
3.69
4.49
Acting (default)
4.10
4.38
3.67
3.79
4.54
Table 4: Subagent advisory vs. acting variants. Mean scores under the full Asclepius configuration. The acting variant gives each subagent direct MCP access within its scope; the advisory variant returns structured recommendations parsed by the Main Agent. We use the acting variant as the default.
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Overall
Diagnosis
Critical Actions
Timeliness
Disposition
Configuration
1–6
7–10
1–6
7–10
1–6
7–10
1–6
7–10
1–6
7–10
Baseline
3.81
3.78
4.36
4.44
2.97
2.90
3.32
3.38
4.58
4.42
+ S
3.93
3.91
4.50
4.42
3.18
3.13
3.54
3.58
4.51
4.50
+ SA
3.76
3.97
4.39
4.50
2.94
3.35
3.28
3.63
4.42
4.40
+ H
4.08
3.82
4.51
4.38
3.50
3.04
3.86
3.42
4.43
4.46
Full Asclepius
4.17
3.97
4.39
4.33
3.76
3.54
3.86
3.69
4.68
4.33
Appendix
Table 5: Search-batch and held-out means. Mean overall and per-dimension scores on batches 1–6 (search) and 7–10 (held-out) for the five ablation configurations. Overall is the unweighted mean of the four sub-dimension scores. Bold marks the best score in each column.
Configuration
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9
B10
Baseline
3.54
3.85
4.06
3.58
3.73
4.08
3.56
3.79
3.94
3.83
Full Asclepius
4.25
4.35
3.94
4.23
4.25
4.02
3.88
3.92
4.21
3.90
Δ
+0.71
+0.50
−0.12
+0.65
+0.52
−0.06
+0.31
+0.12
+0.27
+0.06
Appendix
Table 6: Per-batch overall scores. Overall (mean across the four dimensions) for the baseline framework and full Asclepius on each of the ten batches.
Configuration
Overall
Dx
CA
Time
Disp
Baseline
3.80
4.39
2.94
3.34
4.52
+ S
3.92 ns
4.47
3.16
3.56
4.51
+ SA
3.84 ns
4.43
3.11
3.42
4.41
+ H
3.98 ns
4.46
3.32 *
3.68 *
4.44
Full Asclepius
4.10 **
4.38
3.67 ***
3.79 **
4.54
Appendix
Table 7: Component ablation across all ten patient batches. Per-dimension mean scores when adding the harness ( H ), skills ( S ), and acting subagents ( SA ) on top of the baseline framework. Significance markers (vs. baseline, BH-FDR corrected) follow the overall and execution columns. Bold marks the best score in each column.
+ Skills
+ Subagents
+ Harness
Full
Outcome
Δ
sig.
Δ
sig.
Δ
sig.
Δ
sig.
Overall
+0.12
ns
+0.04
ns
+0.18
ns
+0.30
**
Diagnosis
+0.08
ns
+0.04
ns
+0.07
ns
−0.02
ns
Critical Actions
+0.22
ns
+0.17
ns
+0.38
+0.73
Timeliness
+0.22
ns
+0.08
ns
+0.34
+0.45
**
Disposition
−0.01
ns
−0.11
ns
−0.08
ns
+0.03
ns
Appendix
Table 8: Significance versus baseline (mixed-effects model, BH-FDR corrected). For each outcome and configuration, we report the estimated mean difference vs. the baseline framework on the 1–5 scale and the BH-FDR-corrected significance (*: p<0.05 , **: p<0.01 , ***: p<0.001 , ns: not significant). Overall is the unweighted mean of the four sub-dimension scores.
Split
Δ Overall
p
All batches
+0.12
0.364
Held-out (7–10)
+0.02
0.883
Appendix
Table 9: Marginal contribution of the evolved manual. Mixed-effects mean differences of full Asclepius ( M∗ ) versus S+SA ( M0 ), holding skills and acting subagents fixed.
Config.
Drift (early → late)
Incomplete
Neglect
Baseline
16 → 57%
19%
1.13
+ S
10 → 28%
14%
1.10
+ SA
13 → 29%
20%
0.98
+ H
0 7 → 39%
7%
0.94
Full
10 → 12%
0 9%
0.23
Appendix
Table 10: Per-trace failure-mode counters across all ten patient batches. Lower is better for all three counters. Drift : decay in the agent’s adherence to the operating manual over the shift, measured as the early (hours 0–2) → late (hours 4–6) rise in naked dispositions (dispositions placed with ≤1 prior treatment order, violating the manual’s treatment-first rule). Incomplete : fraction of correctly-diagnosed patients given no disease-specific treatment at all. Neglect : timeliness equity gap, the mean-timeliness difference between non-severe and severe patients (severe = baseline holistic encounter rating ≤2 , n=20 ).
Iteration
Overall
Diagnosis
Critical Actions
Timeliness
Disposition
v0 (baseline)
3.81
4.36
2.97
3.32
4.58
v1
3.95
4.51
3.20
3.50
4.60
v2
3.97
4.40
3.36
3.58
4.52
v3
3.98
4.45
3.29
3.64
4.53
v4
3.89
4.49
3.18
3.46
4.43
v5
3.91
4.43
3.10
3.57
4.53
Appendix
Table 11: Harness search trajectory on search batches (1–6). Mean scores across the six search batches (out of 5) for each harness iteration. Overall is the unweighted mean of the four sub-dimension scores. v7 is selected as the final manual based on overall search-batch performance. Bold marks the best score in each column.
Large language model (LLM) agents perform strongly on short- and mid-horizon tasks, but often break down on long-horizon tasks that require extended, interdependent action sequences. Despite rapid progress in agentic systems, these long-horizon failures remain poorly characterized, hindering principled diagnosis and comparison across domains. To address this gap, we introduce HORIZON, an initial cross-domain diagnostic benchmark for systematically constructing tasks and analyzing long-horizon failure behaviors in LLM-based agents. Using HORIZON, we evaluate state-of-the-art (SOTA) agents from multiple model families (GPT-5 variants and Claude models), collecting 3100+ trajectories across four representative agentic domains to study horizon-dependent degradation patterns. We further propose a trajectory-grounded LLM-as-a-Judge pipeline for scalable and reproducible failure attribution, and validate it with human annotation on trajectories, achieving strong agreement (inter-annotator κ=0.61; human-judge κ=0.84). Our findings offer an initial methodological step toward systematic, cross-domain analysis of long-horizon agent failures and offer practical guidance for building more reliable long-horizon agents. We release our project website at HORIZON Leaderboard and welcome contributions from the community.
Xinyu Jessica Wang, Haoyue Bai, Yiyou Sun +7
University of Wisconsin–Madison · University of California, Berkeley · Georgia Institute of Technology
Self-evolving runtime harnesses can substantially improve the capabilities of large language model (LLM) agents and provide a promising paradigm for optimizing agent execution. Existing failure-driven approaches often treat observed agent failures as direct evidence for harness modification. A key challenge in failure-driven harness evolution is that observed failures can reflect either limitations of the underlying model or systematic deficiencies of the harness. Directly optimizing against individual failures can therefore induce model-specific accommodation and impair generalization across tasks and models. We study whether failure evidence accumulated across task instances can provide a more reliable signal for harness training. Our key insight is that failures recurring across distinct tasks provide stronger inductive evidence for systematic harness deficiencies than isolated failures. Based on this insight, we propose Ecdysis, which aggregates failure evidence across task instances before promoting recurring failure patterns into persistent harness evolution, biasing evolution toward repairs that are more likely to generalize beyond individual model behaviors. Ecdysis further employs collaborative failure analysis to refine modification specifications, trading additional evolution-time reasoning for improved modification quality. Across multiple LLMs and benchmarks, Ecdysis improves the reasoning accuracy of evolved harnesses by 18.56% over existing harness evolution while achieving up to 1.84x faster harness training. Ecdysis also enables more data-efficient training. Fine-grained analysis shows that Ecdysis reduces model-specific accommodation during evolution, while the resulting harnesses exhibit stronger cross-LLM generalization and lower inference-time token consumption.
Ruiqing Yue, Yu Cui, Zhuoyu Sun +11
Chengdu Institute of Computer Applications, Chinese Academy of Sciences · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · Beijing Institute of Technology +3
LLM agents fail mid-episode -- they loop, cascade tool errors, drift off goal, fabricate results, or silently absorb corrupted content -- and the standard remedy, judging every step with a second LLM, costs more than the agent itself. We ask how much detection is achievable from observable step telemetry alone, using monitors costing microseconds per step and trained only on healthy runs. On 2,823 committed agent episodes across three frameworks, three local models (qwen2.5 7b/3b, llama3.1 8b) and a commercial API (gemini-2.5-flash), a one-class echo-state-network ensemble with CUSUM alarms detects 0.71 of failures at a 5% false-alarm budget (AUROC 0.872). Its advantage over a memoryless baseline is a monotone function of post-onset horizon (+0.09 at <=3 steps, +0.40 at >=9), predicting its own failure region out of sample on AFTraj-2K. Ranking transfers with no retraining to two corpora from other groups (AFTraj-2K 0.745, ATBench 0.779). Monitors carry two burdens: a per-deployment healthy null (they do not transfer -- AUROC 0.527 cold against 0.885 recalibrated) and a residual false-alarm rate. We add a layer carrying neither: deterministic verification, which recomputes a run's stated total from the tool results it actually received and confirms every required call was made. Head-to-head it catches 60% of failures (96% with the coverage check) at 0 of 63 false positives against the monitor's 54% at 17%, transfers unchanged to llama3.1:8b (110 of 110 at 0 of 10), and trips on 0 of 1825 healthy episodes. Detection is then closed into repair: each flagged run is rolled back and re-run live, recovering 45% of failures against a 16% resampling control (p=0.0005) and lifting task success from 52% to 73% for about one extra model call per run. The system runs at ~200 microseconds per step, three orders of magnitude below a judge call. Code, traces and results are released.