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 $2518$ agent trajectories across software engineering, computer use, and science, close to real deployment, and classify $6967$ mistakes into $78$ 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 $4$B 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, Y. Kim, Mihir Parmar et al.· 0 citations
AI systems are used worldwide, but they struggle to serve the needs of culturally diverse populations. Prior work on cultural understanding evaluates AI systems on text-only settings or on visual artifact recognition (e.g. foods, clothing). The ability to reason about visually observable behaviors through local social norms, which we call visual norm understanding, remains unexamined. We introduce NormViz-Bench, a high quality, human-validated benchmark of 3,268 contrastive image pairs (6,536 images) spanning 16 countries. Each pair varies only in the culturally relevant behavior (e.g., objects, attributes, spatial relations, and actions) that alters how each image is interpreted. Each image is labeled as conforming to, violating, or irrelevant to local social norms, and pair-level evaluation requires both images to be correctly classified, thereby preventing reliance on superficial visual shortcuts. Even the strongest VLMs, Gemini 3.0 Flash and Qwen2.5 VL 7B, succeed on only 26.6% and 21.6% of pairs, struggling most with identifying violating and culturally benign visual behaviors. Towards bridging this, we introduce NormViz-Train, a training dataset of 64k images paired with explanations. Though absolute performance remains low (<30%), finetuning on NormViz-Train improves pair accuracy relatively by up to 125% and 36% Qwen3-VL 4B and 8B respectively, showing a path forward to teach models to connect visual perception to cultural significance. Together, NormViz-Bench and NormViz-Train establish visual norm understanding as a challenging and consequential frontier for multimodal AI.
Akhila Yerukola, Fabrice Y. Harel-Canada, Simran Khanuja et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
