Source-linked AI summary

UltraHorizon: Benchmarking Agent Capabilities in Ultra Long-Horizon Scenarios

Haotian Luo, Huaisong Zhang, Xuelin Zhang, Haoyu Wang, Zeyu Qin, Wenjie Lu, Guozheng Ma, Haiying He, Yingsha Xie, Qiyang Zhou, Zixuan Hu, Hongze Mi, Yibo Wang, Naiqiang Tan, Hong Chen, Yi R. Fung, Chun Yuan, Li Shen

arXiv:2509.21766v1cs.AIcs.CL

TL;DR

Existing benchmarks focus largely on short-horizon or fully observable tasks, leaving long-horizon exploration in partially observable settings under-evaluated. UltraHorizon benchmarks discovery across three environments, and experiments find that LLM agents underperform human participants, with trajectory analyses identifying recurring failure causes.

  • Problem

    Existing benchmarks rarely evaluate long-horizon, partially observable exploration, despite its relevance to real-world tasks that require sustained reasoning, planning, memory management, and tool use.

    Source: §1 · pp. 1–2
  • Method

    UltraHorizon evaluates agents through exploration across three discovery-oriented environments where they iteratively uncover hidden rules.

    Source: §1 · pp. 2–3
  • Results

    LLM agents consistently underperform on UltraHorizon, while human participants achieve higher scores.

    Source: §1 · pp. 2–3
  • Takeaways & Limitations

    Trajectory analysis identifies recurring errors rooted in in-context locking and foundational capability gaps.

    Source: §1 · pp. 2–3

    Agents may falter because of intrinsic gaps in logical reasoning, long-term memory management, tool calling, or multi-step planning.

    Source: §5.2 · p. 9

Abstract

from arXiv · show

Autonomous agents have recently achieved remarkable progress across diverse domains, yet most evaluations focus on short-horizon, fully observable tasks. In contrast, many critical real-world tasks, such as large-scale software development, commercial investment, and scientific discovery, unfold in long-horizon and partially observable scenarios where success hinges on sustained reasoning, planning, memory management, and tool use. Existing benchmarks rarely capture these long-horizon challenges, leaving a gap in systematic evaluation. To bridge this gap, we introduce \textbf{UltraHorizon} a novel benchmark that measures the foundational capabilities essential for complex real-world challenges. We use exploration as a unifying task across three distinct environments to validate these core competencies. Agents are designed in long-horizon discovery tasks where they must iteratively uncover hidden rules through sustained reasoning, planning, memory and tools management, and interaction with environments. Under the heaviest scale setting, trajectories average \textbf{200k+} tokens and \textbf{400+} tool calls, whereas in standard configurations they still exceed \textbf{35k} tokens and involve more than \textbf{60} tool calls on average. Our extensive experiments reveal that LLM-agents consistently underperform in these settings, whereas human participants achieve higher scores, underscoring a persistent gap in agents' long-horizon abilities. We also observe that simple scaling fails in our task. To better illustrate the failure of agents, we conduct an in-depth analysis of collected trajectories. We identify eight types of errors and attribute them to two primary causes: in-context locking and functional fundamental capability gaps. \href{https://github.com/StarDewXXX/UltraHorizon}{Our code will be available here.}

1 INTRODUCTION

Existing agent benchmarks generally emphasize short, fully observable interactions, while many real-world tasks unfold over long horizons and under partial observability. UltraHorizon evaluates exploration in extended discovery tasks; experiments find agents underperform humans, and trajectory analysis identifies recurring failure causes.

1 INTRODUCTION

  • Existing benchmarks typically involve only a few thousand tokens and fewer than 30 tool calls, leaving sustained reasoning, planning, and memory management under-tested.The introduction contrasts this with real-world software development, investment, and scientific discovery, which unfold over long horizons and in partially observable settings.Source: §1 · pp. 1–2
  • UltraHorizon evaluates sustained reasoning, planning, memory management, and tool use through exploration across three partially observable, long-horizon environments.Trajectories average 200k+ tokens and 400+ tool calls in the heaviest setting, and exceed 35k tokens and 60 tool calls in standard configurations.Source: §1 · pp. 2–3
  • Human participants outperform LLM agents on UltraHorizon, and simple scaling fails due to context overload.The paper also proposes a scaling strategy, but the supplied passage does not characterize its results.Source: Figure 1 · p. 2, §1 · p. 3
  • Trajectory analysis organizes agent failures into root causes and observable patterns, highlighting in-context locking.The paper describes agents becoming locked on initial patterns among its recurring failure causes.Source: §1 · pp. 2–3

2 RELATED WORK

Prior agent benchmarks address tool use and interactive tasks across varied domains, while long-context benchmarks test reasoning over static inputs. UltraHorizon is positioned as an interactive exploration benchmark for discovering unknown rules over long horizons.

2 RELATED WORK

  • Agent benchmarks cover simulated-user interactions, software issue fixing, web search, simulated environments, and strategy games, but generally emphasize shorter-horizon tasks with known rules.The related-work discussion argues for evaluating long-horizon exploration and rule discovery in partially observable settings.Source: §2 · p. 3
  • Long-context benchmarks test reasoning over lengthy static inputs through scattered-fact retrieval, embedded questions, or needle-in-a-haystack tasks.RULER extends needle-in-a-haystack evaluation with varied needles, multi-hop tracing, and aggregation; UltraHorizon instead emphasizes interactive exploration.Source: §2 · p. 3

3 ULTRAHORIZON

UltraHorizon uses hidden, discoverable rules and extended interactions to assess agent capabilities across three exploration environments. Its design emphasizes temporal depth, internal consistency, and relevance to real-world abilities.

3.1 DESIGN PRINCIPLES

  • The design principles emphasize temporal depth, internally coherent rules discoverable through interaction, unknown rules requiring hypothesis refinement, and real-world-relevant abilities.The targeted abilities include sustained reasoning, planning, decision-making, memory management, and adaptation in partially observable environments.Source: §3.1 · pp. 3–4

3.2 ENVIRONMENTS

  • The three environments use exploration to investigate hidden rules through different domains and interaction types.Mystery Grid concerns symbol effects, Sequence Exploration concerns a five-rule transformation pipeline, and Alien Genetics Laboratory concerns triploid inheritance mechanisms.Source: §3.2 · p. 4, Figure 2 · p. 4

3.2.1 ENVIRONMENT I: MYSTERY GRID

  • Mystery Grid is a 10 × 10 world where agents test hypotheses about fixed symbol effects under energy and step budgets, then submit a mapping.Multiple resets permit iterative hypothesis testing; symbol effects can depend on energy or position.Source: §3.2.1 · p. 4

3.2.2 ENVIRONMENT II: SEQUENCE EXPLORATION

  • Sequence Exploration asks agents to infer five concealed, deterministic transformation rules from paired length-five sequences and their outputs.After N exploratory steps, agents provide a complete natural-language description of the rules.Source: §3.2.2 · pp. 4–5

3.2.3 ENVIRONMENT III: ALIEN GENETICS LABORATORY

  • Alien Genetics Laboratory asks agents to infer a triploid organism’s inheritance system through controlled genetic experiments.The final model covers gamete formation, trait inheritance patterns, and lethal interactions.Source: §3.2.3 · p. 5

4 EXPERIMENTS

Across three environments, LLM agents underperform human participants, and experiments identify long horizons and interaction-step scaling as persistent challenges. Performance varies across models and settings, while simply extending interaction does not reliably improve results.

4.1 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP

  • Experiments tested five proprietary and open-source LLMs, used point-wise LLM-as-a-Judge scoring, and evaluated exploration across three environments.The judge was Deepseek-R1; agents had a 128k maximum context length and a 200-message limit.Source: §4.1 · p. 5, §4.2 · p. 5

4.2.1 ANALYSIS OF FIXED STEP EXPERIMENTS

  • Gemini-2.5-Pro led Mystery Grid and Alien Genetics Laboratory, while DeepSeek-V3 performed poorly; Sequence Exploration was most challenging across models.Fixed-step limits were 50 for Mystery Grid and Sequence Exploration, and 25 for Alien Genetics Laboratory.Source: §4.2.1 · pp. 5–6, Figure 3 · p. 6

4.2.2 ANALYSIS OF FREE STEP EXPERIMENTS

  • Approximately 4 points of improvement for Gemini-2.5-Pro in Mystery Grid and Alien Genetics Laboratory contrasted with Qwen3-235b's 6.44-point decline in Sequence Exploration.Removing step constraints produced divergent results, so more exploration was not universally beneficial.Source: Figure 4 · p. 6, §4.2.2 · p. 6

4.2 MAIN EXPERIMENTS

  • LLMs markedly underperform humans on UltraHorizon, despite often surpassing human baselines on math-reasoning benchmarks.Some models also terminate prematurely; experiments compare free-step runs with fixed interaction limits.Source: §4.2 · p. 5, §4.2.2 · p. 6

4.2.3 ANALYSIS ON TRACE STATISTICS

  • 99.30 tool calls and 62,015 tokens characterized Qwen3-235b's fixed-step Sequence Exploration traces; Gemini-2.5-Pro used 85.33 tool calls and 58,125 completion tokens.In free-step Alien Genetics, DeepSeek-V3's trace shortened from 60,847 to 10,582 tokens and tool calls fell from 70.75 to 11.69, with a marginally improved score; Sequence Exploration failed universally.Source: Table 1 · p. 7, §4.2.3 · p. 7

4.3 ABLATION STUDY ON HORIZON LEVEL

  • 34.4 at n = 1 fell monotonically to 5.62 at n = 5 for GLM-4.5, implicating sustained reasoning and memory over longer horizons as a major bottleneck.The Mystery Grid ablation varied the number of hidden rules and normalized scores as percentages.Source: §4.3 · pp. 7–8, Table 2 · p. 8

4.4.1 SIMPLE SCALING FAILS

  • 7.30 at 125 steps was Mystery Grid's peak before falling to 6.56 at 150; Alien Genetics peaked at 25 steps, while Sequence Exploration reached only 4.08 at 75.Across environments, increasing interaction steps did not reliably improve performance.Source: Figure 5 · p. 8, §4.4.1 · p. 8

4.4.2 A SIMPLE BUT EFFECTIVE SCALING STRATEGY

  • Context Refresh with Notes Recall clears prior dialogue near the context-window limit, then asks the agent to reconstruct earlier knowledge from its self-maintained notes.The approach is described as lightweight context summarization intended to avoid inefficiencies and confusion from excessively long contexts.Source: §4.4.2 · pp. 8–9

5 WHY DO AGENTS FAIL IN LONG-HORIZON TASK?

The authors distinguish root causes of agent failure from the observable patterns they produce in trajectories. They identify in-context locking and foundational capability gaps as two root causes.

5.1 FAILURE CATEGORIZATION

  • The authors propose a two-level framework that categorizes failures by their root causes and observable manifestations.Source: §5.1 · p. 9

5.2 FAILURE ORIGIN: ROOT CAUSES OF AGENT BREAKDOWN

  • In-context locking describes agents persisting with initial patterns, assumptions, or habits instead of dynamically adjusting or exploring beyond familiar actions.GLM-4.5’s median entropy trends downward across three environments, which the authors interpret as evidence of emerging locking; the end-of-sequence rise is attributed to final-output uncertainty.Source: §5.2 · p. 9
  • Foundational capability gaps are intrinsic model limitations in reasoning, long-term memory management, tool calling, or multi-step planning.These deficiencies may cause failure even without early-context inertia.Source: §5.2 · p. 9

5.3 FAILURE MANIFESTATION: HOW FAILURES SURFACE IN TRAJECTORIES

  • The framework separates why agents fail from how those failures surface in trajectories, using observable patterns catalogued in Table 7.The authors present the distinction as a lens for clearer diagnosis and attribution; their takeaway also notes that agents get stuck in early assumptions and narrow strategies, with entropy analysis confirming locking.Source: §5.3 · p. 9

6 CONCLUSION

UltraHorizon evaluates language agents in long-horizon, partially observable environments, with trajectories exceeding 200k tokens and 400 tool calls in the heaviest setting. Experiments find that agents remain limited relative to humans, and trajectory analyses identify recurring errors linked to in-context locking and foundational skill deficiencies.

6 CONCLUSION

  • Under the heaviest setting, UltraHorizon trajectories average 200k+ tokens and 400+ tool calls, while standard runs exceed 35k tokens and 60+ tool calls.The benchmark targets sustained reasoning, planning, memory management, and tool use in long-horizon, partially observable environments.Source: §6 · p. 10
  • State-of-the-art agents exhibit substantial limitations, whereas human participants attain markedly higher success rates.Trajectory-level analyses reveal recurring error patterns rooted in in-context locking and foundational skill deficiencies.Source: §6 · p. 10
  • Figure 7 presents the categories and distribution of agents’ failures on UltraHorizon.Source: Figure 7 · p. 10

ETHICS STATEMENTS

The benchmark uses synthetic environments with explicit rules and no sensitive data or real-world identities. Human evaluations followed participant information, consent, anonymity, and withdrawal safeguards.

ETHICS STATEMENTS

  • The benchmark environments are synthetic, use explicitly defined rules, and do not involve sensitive data or real-world identities.Source: ETHICS STATEMENTS · p. 11
  • Human participants received information about the study and data use, could withdraw without penalty, and had their data anonymized; no personally identifiable information was collected.Source: ETHICS STATEMENTS · p. 11
  • The authors report following the Declaration of Helsinki principles and conducting an informal ethics review with peers.Source: ETHICS STATEMENTS · p. 11

REPRODUCIBILITY STATEMENT

This section documents reproducibility materials, including environment settings, agent prompts, and evaluation rubrics. The prompts and rubric address discovering hidden mechanisms through experimentation, describing them precisely, and supporting stepwise tool use, planning, and note review.

REPRODUCIBILITY STATEMENT

  • Prompts, agent code, evaluation scripts, experiment configurations, and fixed computational resources are documented to enable independent verification.Configurations include hyperparameters, random seeds, and model versions: Gemini-2.5-Pro, GLM-4.5, DeepSeek-V3, Kimi K2-instruct, and Qwen3-235b.Source: REPRODUCIBILITY STATEMENT · p. 11

A ENVIRONMENTAL SETTINGS

B.1 AGENT PROMPT FOR MYSTERY GRID ENVIRONMENT

  • Mystery Grid agents must experimentally infer each letter’s hidden effect and trigger condition, validate hypotheses across trials, and submit a complete one-to-one mapping.Source: §B.1 · p. 20

B.2 AGENT PROMPT FOR SEQUENCE EXPLORE ENVIRONMENT

  • Sequence Explore agents must uncover deterministic rules transforming pairs of five-character sequences, using repeated tests and notes before submitting the mechanisms.Rule difficulty varies between easy simplified rules and hard complex versions.Source: §B.2 · p. 21

B.3 AGENT PROMPT FOR GENETICS LAB ENVIRONMENT

  • Genetics Lab agents must explore hidden letter effects, validate them across trials, and submit a complete mapping that identifies each effect’s trigger condition.Source: §B.1 · p. 20, §B.3 · p. 22

B.4 LLM JUDGE PROMPT FOR MYSTERY GRID ENVIRONMENT

  • The Mystery Grid judge scores letter mappings against ground truth and requires correct effects and explicit trigger conditions, rejecting vague, wrong, or incomplete attributions.Source: §B.4 · pp. 22–23

B.5 LLM JUDGE PROMPT FOR SEQUENCE EXPLORE ENVIRONMENT

  • The Sequence Explore judge assigns 20 points per rule and requires the complete transformation chain’s mechanisms and application conditions to match ground truth.Vague or incorrect mechanisms and missing or conflicting rules are incorrect.Source: §B.5 · pp. 23–24

B.6 LLM JUDGE PROMPT FOR GENETICS LAB ENVIRONMENT

  • The judge rubric scores triploidy and inheritance mechanisms across meiosis, viability, body size, color dominance, and shell traits for 100 points.It includes quantitative body-size allele values and a lethal three-allele shell combination.Source: §B.6 · pp. 24–25
  • The judge awards credit only for complete, correct mechanisms, accepts logically equivalent wording, and rejects vague descriptions.A sample evaluation reports a final score of 87, with zero credit for triploidy recognition, cyclic dominance, and the lethal shell combination.Source: §B.6 · p. 25

B.7 USER PROMPT

  • The user prompt requires explicit thought and next-plan statements, one tool call per step, execution-result explanations, and regular note review.After each tool use, the agent is instructed to suggest next steps before continuing.Source: §B.7 · p. 26

B.8 LLM JUDGE PROMPT FOR ERROR CLASSIFICATION

The appendix pairs a trace-based error-classification rubric with human-performance results across UltraHorizon environments. Human participants outperform the best LLM, while the rubric distinguishes observable failure patterns and their possible causes.

B.8 LLM JUDGE PROMPT FOR ERROR CLASSIFICATION

  • Repetitive looping means repeating ineffective actions without progress, while premature convergence means persisting with an initial hypothesis despite counter-evidence or insufficient evidence.The rubric associates these patterns with cognitive inertia and weak exploratory planning, respectively.Source: §B.8 · p. 26
  • Incoherent planning includes contradictory steps or missing prerequisites, while misaligned tool use includes wrong choices, misread outputs, or gratuitous calls.The rubric identifies planning and logical weaknesses as possible roots of incoherent plans, and tool misunderstanding or habitual use as possible roots of misaligned tool use.Source: §B.8 · p. 26
  • Memory issues include forgotten constraints and overwritten facts; uncontrolled experiments change multiple factors at once, confounding results.The rubric associates these manifestations with memory mismanagement and weak experimental control, respectively.Source: §B.8 · pp. 26–27
  • Error propagation involves repeated mistakes without policy change, while environment mis-modeling appears as inconsistent hidden-rule representations or mispredicted transitions.The rubric links these patterns to memory or reflection gaps and to deficient environment modeling, respectively.Source: §B.8 · p. 27
  • The rubric directs judges to review complete traces, assess each category, index messages where issues are visible from zero, and give concise reasons; Figure 11 reports average score@32 for various LLMs with limited steps on UltraHorizon.Source: §B.8 · p. 27, Figure 11 · p. 28

C.2 HUMAN PERFORMANCE

  • Human participants explored freely, used agent-available tools, and submitted conclusions when confident; Table 6 lists their average scores by environment.The study recorded interactions and anonymized participant data.Source: §C.1 · p. 28, §C.2 · p. 28, Table 6 · p. 28
  • 26.52 average human score exceeded the best LLM score of 14.33 across the three environments.The study involved 33 participants exploring the environments with the same tools available to agents.Source: §C.2 · p. 28

C.3 EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS ON SCORE@32

The section defines score@32 for stochastic environments and examines agent performance and exploration strategies with and without step limits. It also connects strategy and resource efficiency to long-horizon performance and outlines the error-classification process and trajectory case studies.

C.3 EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS ON SCORE@32

  • Score@32 aggregates maximum scores across rule sets in 32 independent trials within the same environment to assess performance under stochasticity.The passage says this accounts for instability in model outputs.Source: §C.3 · p. 28
  • With step limits, Gemini-2.5-Pro and GLM-4.5 lead across environments but use different strategies: systematic sampling then targeted testing versus iterative refinement.Figure 11 is described as confirming the performance hierarchy.Source: §C.3 · p. 28
  • Qwen3-235b requires 40% more steps than Gemini-2.5-Pro to achieve comparable gains in the unrestricted setting.The reported inefficiency is particularly notable in Sequence Exploration, where redundant experiments predominate.Source: Figure 12 · p. 29, §C.3 · p. 29
  • The analysis identifies strategy choice, resource efficiency, and error timing as relevant to long-horizon performance and design priorities.One proposed priority is mitigating early-stage cognitive inertia.Source: §C.3 · p. 29

D.1 ERROR CLASSIFICATION FRAMEWORK

  • The error framework manually categorizes trajectory failures, then uses Gemini-2.5-Pro to classify them and identify failure points, types, and explanations.Table 7 organizes manifestations, possible causes, and underlying issues.Source: §D.1 · p. 29

D.2 CASE STUDIES BY MANIFESTATION

  • The case studies provide trajectory examples for each failure manifestation to illustrate how errors appear in practice and offer insight into their causes and effects.Source: §D.2 · p. 29

D.2.1 CASE TRAJECTORY OF REPETITIVE LOOPING (ROOT: I)

This section examines an Alien Genetics Laboratory trajectory in which the agent repeatedly crossed blue and white organisms or offspring, recorded recurring color and shell traits, and pursued further inheritance and lethality queries. The reported crosses differed in viability, while the agent’s repeated conduct-cross, note, and query actions yielded little change in strategy or information.

D.2.1 CASE TRAJECTORY OF REPETITIVE LOOPING (ROOT: I)

  • From message 28 onward, the agent repeated a conduct-cross, note, and query loop for dozens of steps with little information gain or change in strategy.It repeatedly crossed blue and white organisms and wrote nearly identical notes.Source: §D.2.1 · p. 29
  • Repeated offspring reports described blue and white colors, smooth and ridged shells, and varied body sizes as evidence of similar inheritance patterns.The agent reiterated these observations across successive crosses and continued planning further blue–white crosses.Source: §D.2.1 · pp. 30, 32
  • The earlier cross 86 x 84 produced blue and white offspring, all with ridged shells, and body sizes ranging from tiny to small.The observations were interpreted as consistent with incomplete dominance or co-dominance for color and dominance for ridged shells.Source: §D.2.1 · p. 37
  • After each cross, the trajectory planned additional offspring analyses and crosses to test inheritance patterns and investigate non-viable combinations.The later observations again describe blue and white, ridged offspring, with all offspring tiny in crosses 94 x 95 and 106 x 104.Source: §D.2.1 · pp. 37–40
  • 10 out of 21 fertilization attempts were viable (viability rate: 47.6%) in cross 94 x 95, while 11 offspring were lethal (high lethality: 52.4%).Surviving offspring were all tiny, with blue and white colors and ridged shells.Source: §D.2.1 · p. 38
  • 10 out of 16 fertilization attempts were viable (viability rate: 62.5%) in cross 106 x 104, while 6 offspring were lethal (moderate lethality: 37.5%).Surviving offspring were all tiny, with blue and white colors and ridged shells.Source: §D.2.1 · p. 40

D.2.2 CASE TRAJECTORY OF PREMATURE CONVERGENCE (ROOT: I & II)

The trajectory cases examine agent behavior during rule discovery, including repeated tests of tentative hypotheses about rules 3–5. They illustrate failures in inference, planning, tool use, and memory.

D.2.2 CASE TRAJECTORY OF PREMATURE CONVERGENCE (ROOT: I & II)

  • The agent repeatedly inferred Rule 1 from insufficient evidence, reversed its proposed character order after a counterexample, and was contradicted again.For the same input, it reported different outputs in Tests 10 and 17, then decided the rule used main[i] + vice[i] rather than vice[i] + main[i].Source: §D.2.2 · pp. 41–43

D.2.3 CASE TRAJECTORY OF INCOHERENT PLANNING (ROOT: II)

  • The agent planned to use organisms from a set it had just removed, destroying the prerequisite for its next action.After removing organisms 11–20, it planned a cross between Org14 and Org15, which belong to that set.Source: §D.2.3 · pp. 43–44

D.2.4 CASE TRAJECTORY OF MISALIGNED TOOL USAGE (ROOT: I & II)

  • The agent repeated the invalid move call with direction “stay” at message 148 after an error explained the valid directions at message 4.Source: §D.2.4 · pp. 46–47

D.2.5 CASE TRAJECTORY OF MEMORY ISSUES (ROOT: II)

  • The agent forgot the two-different-letters input constraint at indices 12, 22, and 28, and abandoned its plan to investigate rules 3–5 by returning to rule 2.It had been told the constraint at index 3 and stated its plan at index 38 before switching back at index 40.Source: §D.2.5 · p. 47
  • The note says Rule 3 adds repeated characters in counts of one to five, Rule 4 makes selective changes, and Rule 5 makes systematic changes in Tests 2, 3, and 5.The agent presents these as observed patterns, not established rules.Source: §D.2.5 · p. 49
  • The agent plans further tests to clarify Rule 2 and isolate Rules 3–5, then submits AABBC as both the main and vice sequence.Source: §D.2.5 · p. 49

D.2.6 CASE TRAJECTORY OF UNCONTROLLED EXPERIMENTS (ROOT: II)

The Alien Genetics Laboratory trajectory illustrates an uncontrolled experimental strategy: the agent defaults to sequential crosses rather than designing crosses to test hypotheses, producing confounded results.

D.2.6 CASE TRAJECTORY OF UNCONTROLLED EXPERIMENTS (ROOT: II)

  • The case trajectory is from DeepSeek-V3 operating in the Alien Genetics Laboratory.Source: §D.2.6 · p. 49
  • The agent defaults to sequential crosses instead of designing hypothesis-testing crosses, so it does not effectively isolate variables and obtains confounded results.The model-provided analysis contrasts sequential pairings with targeted designs such as F1 intercrosses and backcrosses.Source: §D.2.6 · p. 49
  • The trace proceeds through organism pairs 4×5, 6×7, and 8×9, illustrating the sequential-cross strategy.The next-step notes list 4×5, then 6×7, then 8×9.Source: §D.2.6 · p. 50

D.2.7 CASE TRAJECTORY OF ERROR PROPAGATION (ROOT: I & II)

The case analyses show errors persisting despite feedback: one agent repeats a failed cross at capacity, while another clings to a flawed model of how step number affects a rule.

D.2.7 CASE TRAJECTORY OF ERROR PROPAGATION (ROOT: I & II)

  • Repeatedly attempting crosses at maximum organism capacity causes the error to recur through the second half of the trace, despite negative feedback.The agent repeats the same mistake-and-recovery cycle without changing strategy.Source: §D.2.7 · p. 51

D.2.8 CASE TRAJECTORY OF ENVIRONMENT MIS-MODELING (ROOT: II)

  • The agent treats step number’s effect on Rule 1 as a simple odd/even switch and clings to that model despite persistent prediction errors.The trajectory analysis identifies failure to update the internal rule representation.Source: §D.2.8 · p. 52

E DISCLOSURE OF LLM USAGE

  • The authors report that LLM use was limited to manuscript editing, not ideation, methodology, experimental design, or data analysis.They state that the authors independently developed and conducted the research and accept accountability for the manuscript.Source: E DISCLOSURE OF LLM USAGE · pp. 54–55
Loading 2509.21766v1…