LEASH: Uncertainty-Aware Weak-to-Strong Escalation and Oversight for Computer-Use Agents

Effective automation hinges on deciding when to act and when to escalate. We model this as a decision under uncertainty: an LLM forms a prediction, estimates its probability of being correct, and compares the expected costs of acting and escalating. Using this framework across five domains of recorded human decisions-demand forecasting, content recommendation, content moderation, loan approval, and autonomous driving-and across multiple model families, we find marked differences in the implicit thresholds models use to trade off these costs. These thresholds vary substantially and are not predicted by architecture or scale, while self-estimates are miscalibrated in model-specific ways. We then test interventions that target this decision process by varying cost ratios, providing accuracy signals, and training models to follow the desired escalation rule. Prompting helps mainly for reasoning models. SFT on chain-of-thought targets yields the most robust policies, which generalize across datasets, cost ratios, prompt framings, and held-out domains. These results suggest that escalation behavior is a model-specific property that should be characterized before deployment, and that robust alignment benefits from training models to reason explicitly about uncertainty and decision costs.

Current LLM agent systems decide delegation before reasoning begins (a router picks a model) or after a response is complete (a verifier scores it and may retry). We study a third regime: an agent that recognises, during its own reasoning, that it is unlikely to succeed and transfers control to a stronger model. We formulate intra-generation delegation as a Bayesian optimal-stopping problem over a learned competence posterior -- an online estimate of the agent's eventual task success whose sufficient statistics are learned from labelled trajectories, not read off raw entropy. We derive the myopic escalation threshold in closed form, characterise the optimal policy via dynamic programming, and prove that the optimal policy is a time-varying threshold with no shape assumption on the raw signal. We further prove exponential separation of the oracle belief at the Chernoff-information rate of the signal, a regret bound governed by the calibration of the posterior, and a finite-sample guarantee: with n labelled calibration trajectories the deployed plug-in policy's regret decays as 1/sqrt(n). A controlled simulation study confirms each prediction of the theory, including the predicted 1/sqrt(n) rate. We additionally report a real-model validation on a Qwen2.5-Coder 1.5B->7B code cascade (MBPP, 257 tasks), confirming two of three pre-registered predictions: the escalation frontier dominates post-hoc routing at equal cost, and the cumulative competence belief's discrimination rises over generation.

Computer-use agents provide a promising path toward general software automation because they can interact directly with arbitrary graphical user interfaces instead of relying on brittle, application-specific integrations. Despite recent advances in benchmark performance, strong computer-use agents remain expensive and slow in practice, since most systems invoke large multimodal models at nearly every interaction step. We argue that this uniform allocation of compute is fundamentally inefficient for long-horizon GUI tasks. Such trajectories are highly heterogeneous: many steps are routine and can be handled reliably by smaller, cheaper policies, while errors tend to concentrate at a relatively small number of high-risk moments. Across computer-use benchmarks, these failures repeatedly take two forms: progress stalls, where the agent loops, repeats ineffective actions, or fails to make meaningful progress, and silent semantic drift, where the agent continues taking locally plausible actions after already deviating from the user's true goal. To address this inefficiency, we propose an event-driven, step-level cascade for computer-use agents that runs a small policy by default and escalates to a stronger model only when lightweight learned monitors detect elevated risk. Our framework combines two complementary signals: a Stuck Monitor that detects degraded progress from recent reasoning-action history and triggers recovery, and a Milestone Monitor that identifies semantically meaningful checkpoints where sparse verification is most informative for catching drift. This design turns always-on frontier-model inference into adaptive, on-demand compute allocation over the course of an evolving interaction. The framework is modular and deployment-oriented: it can be layered on top of existing computer-use agents without changing the underlying agent architecture or retraining the large model.