Can an AI agent complete a task and still fail?
Summary
This paper introduces the concept of 'Verifier Tax' to categorize AI agent outcomes as safe success, unsafe success, or failure, and proposes a two-tier verification architecture for tool-using LLM agents.
Similar Articles
Should AI agent benchmarks separate “safe success” from “unsafe success”?
This article discusses the concept of 'Verifier Tax' in AI agent benchmarks, distinguishing between safe success (completing tasks without violating constraints) and unsafe success (completing tasks but violating constraints), and questions how to properly measure agent performance considering safety tradeoffs.
The Verifier Tax: Horizon-Dependent Safety–Success Tradeoffs in Tool-Using LLM Agents [R]
This paper presents a safety evaluation framework for tool-using LLM agents, introducing the concept of the 'Verifier Tax'—a horizon-dependent tradeoff between safety and task completion. It proposes a two-tier verification architecture and uses Tau-bench scenarios to demonstrate how verification can reduce unsafe successes but also decrease task completion as task horizon increases.
A successful agent run is not verification. One of our same-model ablations completed 60/60 tasks and got 0/60 correct.
The article identifies a failure mode in AI agents where successful task completion doesn't ensure correctness, based on an ablation study, and introduces AdaptOrch as a tool for implementing external verification and reliability in agent workflows.
Do we trust AI agents too much once they start completing tasks successfully?
The article questions whether we become overly trusting of AI agents after they perform tasks successfully, highlighting risks of unnoticed errors and debating the need for verification layers.
LLM-as-a-Verifier (GitHub Repo)
LLM-as-a-Verifier is a general-purpose verification framework that provides fine-grained feedback for AI agents, achieving state-of-the-art performance on benchmarks like Terminal-Bench and SWE-Bench.