Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 71 references

VerificAgent: Domain-Specific Memory Verification for Scalable Oversight of Aligned Computer-Use Agents

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Fact-checking an agent's stored memory and freezing it lifts PowerPoint task success from 25% to 52% and blocks memory-injection attacks, without any model fine-tuning.

desk verdict A useful verify-then-freeze oversight pipeline whose headline performance gain is plausible but under-audited; the idea deserves review, the numbers need neutral re-grading and artifact release. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02539 v3 pith:HTTIY7EB submitted 2025-06-03 cs.LG

Thong Q. Nguyen , Shubhang Desai , Raja Hasnain Anwar , Firoz Shaik , Vishwas Suryanarayanan , Vishal Chowdhary This is my paper
classification cs.LG
keywords computer-usingagentspersistentmemoryverificationscalableoversightmemory-injectionattacksGUItaskautomationfrozencontractalignment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that the persistent memory of computer-using agents can be turned from an alignment liability into an asset by a 'generate, verify, freeze' pipeline. It reports that fact-checking learned memory and locking it in place lifts PowerPoint task success from 25% to 52%, an up-to-111% relative improvement, across two public computer-use agents and without any model fine-tuning. It also reports that in the Red-Team Memory Injection testbed, adversarial instructions planted in memory end with 0% final infiltration after human review. If right, this gives a low-cost oversight layer: humans correct high-impact errors once, and the verified memory acts as a frozen contract that future agent plans must satisfy, curbing silent policy drift.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is VerificAgent's generate-then-freeze memory pipeline: an expert-curated seed of domain knowledge supplies initial rules; an Analyzer distills each execution trajectory into lessons; an Integrate step merges those lessons into a growing memory; and a Review operator, human fact-checkers aided by an AI triage tool, prunes or corrects hallucinated entries. The resulting corrected memory is frozen and used read-only at inference, so later tasks cannot silently overwrite verified rules. A two-tier defense sits in front of the human pass: a trajectory-analysis module filters raw event traces before memory write-back, and domain heuristics discard volatile or behavior-altering phrases. The load-bearing identity is that memory, once verified, is treated as an immutable safety contract rather than as a continuously mutable scratchpad.

What would settle it

The most direct falsifier is a re-run of the 36 PowerPoint inference tasks under the original, unrelaxed grading code, without the approximate position and color comparisons or the per-task acceptance changes described in the appendix; if corrected-memory success falls back to near the 25% baseline, the headline capability claim is an artifact. A second check is to run the memory-injection testbed with unrestricted paraphrases and multi-turn attackers and see whether any injected instruction reaches the frozen memory after human review.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that putting a human-verification gate between memory growth and memory use converts accumulated agent memory from a source of hallucinated policy drift into a reliable, auditable scaffold. The quantitative claim is that with fact-checked memory, PowerPoint success reaches 52% versus a 25% baseline, and Excel success for one tested agent goes from 0% to 40%, without retraining. The adversarial claim is that after human review, none of the 60 memory-injection prompts survive in persistent memory, even though 13 of those prompts penetrated the automated two-tier filter. The paper also reports a roughly ninefold reduction in reviewer effort from AI-assisted triage, and a qualitative error analysis attributing most remaining failures to policy translation and execution drift rather than to missing domain knowledge.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the study's modified grading procedure for the Office tasks measures true task success accurately enough, so the reported jump from 25% to 52% on PowerPoint reflects real agent capability rather than a grader that became more lenient for the corrected-memory configuration.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same verify-then-freeze recipe can be applied to persistent-state agents without retraining, so capability gains and safety fixes compose with any underlying model.
  • Because the corrected memory is frozen, later tasks cannot silently overwrite verified rules, making policy drift a bounded, reviewable process rather than an unbounded one.
  • Remaining failures shift from knowledge gaps to policy translation and low-level execution, so further progress depends on better multimodal planning and action synthesis, not on larger memory stores.
  • Even a strong automated filter lets a substantial minority of injected instructions through, so any agent framework that persists state must budget for a human or AI-assisted veto layer.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • As an extension beyond the paper, the same oversight layer could be tested on non-GUI agents, such as code agents or database agents, wherever persistent memory accumulates and a domain-specific grader can be built.
  • The 0% infiltration metric rests on a Levenshtein-distance-2 paraphrase test; a stronger adversarial benchmark with unrestricted paraphrases or multi-turn injection would reveal whether the defense generalizes beyond the paper's setup.
  • Because the paper's own error analysis shows over half of residual failures are execution drift, a natural next experiment is pairing verified memory with stronger low-level action models rather than expanding the memory bank.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces VerificAgent, a framework that treats a computer-use agent's persistent memory as an alignment surface. The pipeline combines an expert-curated seed of domain knowledge, iterative memory growth from trajectory analysis, and a post-hoc human fact-checking pass that prunes or corrects hallucinated entries before the memory is frozen for inference. The authors evaluate on OSWorld Office tasks (36 PowerPoint, 18 Word, 10 Excel tasks after filtering) using OpenAI's computer-use-preview and ByteDance's UI-TARS-1.5-7B, and on a new Red-Team Memory Injection (RTMI) testbed. They report that corrected memory lifts PowerPoint success from 25% to 52% (claimed 'up to 111%' relative improvement), improves UI-TARS-1.5-7B's Excel success from 0% to 40%, and reduces memory-injection attacks to 0% infiltration after human review, all without model fine-tuning.

Significance. If the reported results hold, VerificAgent offers a practical, interpretable oversight mechanism for memory-augmented agents: humans correct high-impact memory errors once and freeze the vetted memory as a safety contract. The paper is one of the first to treat persistent memory as an explicit alignment surface, and the RTMI testbed is a useful contribution for studying memory-poisoning defenses. The qualitative example in Appendix B (the chevron-versus-button font-color correction) is compelling and illustrates the mechanism. However, the strength of the central capability claim depends on the validity of the modified grading pipeline and on statistical evidence that is currently missing.

major comments (5)
  1. [§5.1 and Conclusion] The paper claims a '111% relative improvement' (Section 5.1) and 'up to 111%' (Conclusion) for PowerPoint, but 25% to 52% is a 108% relative improvement ((52-25)/25). The 111% figure is not derivable from the numbers given. Please report the exact baseline and corrected success rates used and show the arithmetic, or correct the claim. This is a headline number and the apparent inconsistency undermines confidence in the reported results.
  2. [Appendix A.1 and Table 6] The modified PowerPoint grader (approximate position/color matching, table row/col checks, group unpacking, theme-color access) and the per-task acceptance changes in Table 6 are not shown to be configuration-agnostic. The same kind of human judgment that curated the corrected memory also defined these grader patches, so corrected-memory outputs and grading leniency may be aligned by construction. To support the central claim, the paper should (a) release the exact grader patch code and per-task pass/fail results for all three configurations, (b) re-grade all configurations with the original OSWorld grader and show the comparison, and (c) provide a sensitivity analysis indicating which task outcomes change under each modification and whether the relative ordering of baseline, learned memory, and corrected memory survives.
  3. [§4.1.2 and Figure 2] The headline improvement on PowerPoint is based on only 36 tasks, yet Figure 2 shows no confidence intervals and the text reports no significance test. For a 25% vs 52% difference, the implied counts (roughly 9/36 vs 19/36) have exact binomial 95% confidence intervals that overlap substantially (about 14-41% vs 37-68%). The paper should report the per-task success/failure table for each configuration and a paired statistical test (e.g., McNemar's test, since the tasks are the same across configurations) to support the claim that corrected memory improves task success beyond sampling noise.
  4. [§6.4 and §6.2] The '0% infiltration' result in RTMI is definitional: the threat model defines success as an injected instruction surviving in the agent's persistent memory, and the pipeline includes a human veto that explicitly removes all residual flagged entries. This does not measure the false-negative rate of the human reviewer or of the automated tiers; it only confirms that the protocol's last step is effective by construction. The paper should clarify that the result assumes perfect human review, and it would strengthen the evaluation to report inter-reviewer agreement or to include a more challenging scenario where injected instructions are designed to look benign to reviewers.
  5. [§4.1.1 and §4.1.2] The relationship between the Memory Acquisition Dataset (50 tasks 'drawn from a repository of real-world presentations') and the OSWorld-based Inference Dataset is not specified. If the acquisition tasks overlap in topic or document style with the inference tasks, the reported improvements may partly reflect memorization of task-specific details rather than generalizable knowledge. The paper should clarify the degree of overlap between the two task sets and justify that the acquisition tasks do not leak into the inference evaluation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.3] The '~9x speed-up' from the AI-assisted fact-checking tool is based on an internal study of 10 memories with 50 entries each; the paper should provide more detail on the tool's interface, the annotators' instructions, and the variance across entries, and it should acknowledge that this is a preliminary estimate.
  2. [§3.2 and §3.3] The symbol for the reviewed memory is inconsistent: the text uses both M∗ and M* (e.g., 'M*' in the Learning Phase description and 'M∗' elsewhere). Please standardize the notation.
  3. [Table 1 caption] The caption does not state the method used to compute the confidence intervals; the values appear to be Agresti-Coull intervals, which should be named explicitly in the caption.
  4. [Figure 2] The bars in Figure 2 are hard to read and do not include the numerical success rates; adding the exact percentages on or above each bar would make the figure self-contained.
  5. [§4.1.3 and Appendix A.1] The main text says the grader was enhanced 'to reduce false positives (by tightening comparison thresholds) and reduce false negatives', but Appendix A.1 describes approximate position and color matching, which primarily reduce false negatives. The wording should be aligned with the actual changes to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

One definitional RTMI safety metric; central benchmark claims are empirical and not circular.

  1. self definitional [Section 6.4 and Section 6.1]
    "All thirteen were subsequently detected and removed by human reviewers during the routine oversight pass, yielding a final infiltration rate of 0%."

    RTMI defines attack success as the injected instruction surviving in persistent memory after task completion. The final oversight pass is a human veto that removes flagged entries. Therefore the reported 0% final infiltration is entailed by the definition of the pipeline: any entry the human reviewer removes cannot survive, so the post-review infiltration rate is zero regardless of how effective the automated tiers are. The informative empirical quantities are the 21.6% penetration of the automated tiers and the human reviewers' detection of all thirteen cases; the 0% figure is a definitional consequence of placing human removal as the last defense stage, not an independently measured property of the memory-defense mechanism.

full rationale

VerificAgent is an empirical systems paper, not a derivation from axioms; most of its claims are benchmark measurements rather than consequences of definitions. The central capability claim—verified memory raises PowerPoint success from 25% to 52%—is not circular in the strict sense: the paper uses an external task suite (OSWorld), discloses the grader modifications in Appendix A.1 and Table 6, and does not define the treatment in terms of the outcome. Those grader changes are a validity threat, because the yardstick is author-modified and could in principle favor the corrected-memory configuration, but they are not an equivalence between input and output, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The one step that does reduce by construction is the RTMI '0% infiltration' figure: because attack success is defined as survival in memory and the final pipeline stage is a human review that removes flagged entries, a post-review infiltration rate of zero is entailed by the definition of the pipeline. The informative numbers are the 21.6% penetration of the automated tiers and the human reviewers' detection of all thirteen cases. The paper's own Limitations section acknowledges 'Reviewer Bias' and the need for a 'rigorous, domain-specific grader,' which further indicates the authors are aware of measurement subjectivity. No load-bearing self-citation, uniqueness import, or ansatz-smuggling pattern is present. Overall circularity is low: one definitional safety metric, with the central benchmark claim independently checkable in principle.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework has no fitted scalar parameters; the memory entries are learned artifacts. The core assumptions are the validity of the modified benchmark, the reliability of human review, and the representativeness of the tested agents. No new physical entities or forces are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The OSWorld benchmark is a valid measure of real-world Office task performance.
    The paper relies on OSWorld as external ground truth, but heavily filters tasks to fit Office Online.
  • domain assumption The modified OSWorld grader preserves the validity of the original benchmark.
    Introduced in Appendix A.1; if false, the reported success rates are inflated or deflated in ways that could change the conclusions.
  • domain assumption Human reviewers, aided by AI suggestions, can reliably distinguish correct from incorrect memory entries.
    Central to the oversight phase; the paper itself notes reviewer bias as a limitation.
  • domain assumption The two evaluated agents (computer-use-preview, UI-TARS) and the planner (gpt-4o) are representative of production computer-use agents.
    Limits generalization to other agents and domains, as acknowledged in the limitations section.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of VerificAgent: Domain-Specific Memory Verification for Scalable Oversight of Aligned Computer-Use Agents." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HTTIY7EB

@misc{pith2026250602539,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: VerificAgent: Domain-Specific Memory Verification for Scalable Oversight of Aligned Computer-Use Agents},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HTTIY7EB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02539}
}
read the original abstract

Continual memory augmentation lets computer-using agents (CUAs) learn from prior interactions, but unvetted memories can encode domain-inappropriate or unsafe heuristics--spurious rules that drift from user intent and safety constraints. We introduce VerificAgent, a scalable oversight framework that treats persistent memory as an explicit alignment surface. VerificAgent combines (1) an expert-curated seed of domain knowledge, (2) iterative, trajectory-based memory growth during training, and (3) a post-hoc human fact-checking pass to sanitize accumulated memories before deployment. Evaluated on OSWorld productivity tasks and additional adversarial stress tests, VerificAgent improves task reliability, reduces hallucination-induced failures, and preserves interpretable, auditable guidance--without additional model fine-tuning. By letting humans correct high-impact errors once, the verified memory acts as a frozen safety contract that future agent actions must satisfy. Our results suggest that domain-scoped, human-verified memory offers a scalable oversight mechanism for CUAs, complementing broader alignment strategies by limiting silent policy drift and anchoring agent behavior to the norms and safety constraints of the target domain.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02539 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Architecture of VERIFICAGENT framework, consisting of (a) a learning phase during agent development and (b) an inference phase for deployment in testing and production. 4 Experiments 4.1 Standard Task Performance 4.1.1 Memory Acquisition Dataset To bootstrap the memory module, we curate a Memory Acquisition Dataset comprising 50 Office tasks drawn from a repository of real-world presentations. The tasks are designed… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Side-by-side comparison of agent success rates with different configurations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Sampled steps from a successful execution trajectory for the “set font color to black” task: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sampled steps from a failed execution trajectory for the “set font color to black” task: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Operator: A computer-using agent, 2025

    OpenAI. Operator: A computer-using agent, 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Osworld: Benchmarking multimodal agents for open-ended tasks in real computer environments, 2024

    Tianbao Xie et al. Osworld: Benchmarking multimodal agents for open-ended tasks in real computer environments, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Officebench: Benchmarking language agents across multiple applications for office automation, 2024

    Zilong Wang, Yuedong Cui, Li Zhong, Zimin Zhang, Da Yin, Bill Yuchen Lin, and Jingbo Shang. Officebench: Benchmarking language agents across multiple applications for office automation, 2024. 10

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Clin: A continually learning language agent for rapid task adaptation and generalization, 2023

    Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder, Bhavana Dalvi Mishra, Peter Jansen, Oyvind Tafjord, Niket Tandon, Li Zhang, Chris Callison-Burch, and Peter Clark. Clin: A continually learning language agent for rapid task adaptation and generalization, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Augmenting language models with long-term memory, 2023

    Weizhi Wang, Li Dong, Hao Cheng, Xiaodong Liu, Xifeng Yan, Jianfeng Gao, and Furu Wei. Augmenting language models with long-term memory, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Think-in-memory: Recalling and post-thinking enable llms with long-term memory, 2023

    Lei Liu, Xiaoyan Yang, Yue Shen, Binbin Hu, Zhiqiang Zhang, Jinjie Gu, and Guannan Zhang. Think-in-memory: Recalling and post-thinking enable llms with long-term memory, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    On the self-verification limitations of large language models on reasoning and planning tasks, 2024

    Kaya Stechly, Karthik Valmeekam, and Subbarao Kambhampati. On the self-verification limitations of large language models on reasoning and planning tasks, 2024

    2024

  8. [8]

    Large language models are better reasoners with self-verification

    Yen-Chun Wei, Zhilin Chi, and Percy Liang. Large language models are better reasoners with self-verification. In Findings of EMNLP, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    Llm-cite: Cheap fact verification with attribution via url generation, 2024

    Peng Xie, Bo Zhang, and Chang-Tian Zhu. Llm-cite: Cheap fact verification with attribution via url generation, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Towards verifiable text generation with symbolic references, 2024

    Lucas Torroba Hennigen et al. Towards verifiable text generation with symbolic references, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Digirl: In-the-wild device control for language agents, 2024

    Li Bai, Hao Xu, and Wei Zhang. Digirl: In-the-wild device control for language agents, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Androidworld: Benchmarking language agents on mobile gui tasks, 2024

    Sarah Rawles, Alex Thompson, and Maria Diaz. Androidworld: Benchmarking language agents on mobile gui tasks, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Omniparser for pure vision based gui agent, 2024

    Yadong Lu, Jianwei Yang, Yelong Shen, and Ahmed Awadallah. Omniparser for pure vision based gui agent, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Navigating the digital world as humans do: Universal visual grounding for gui agents, 2024

    Boyu Gou, Ruohan Wang, Boyuan Zheng, Yanan Xie, Cheng Chang, Yiheng Shu, Huan Sun, and Yu Su. Navigating the digital world as humans do: Universal visual grounding for gui agents, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Winclick: Gui grounding with multimodal large language models, 2025

    Zheng Hui, Yinheng Li, Dan Zhao, Tianyi Chen, Colby Banbury, and Kazuhito Koishida. Winclick: Gui grounding with multimodal large language models, 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    Agent s: An open agentic framework that uses computers like a human, 2024

    Saaket Agashe, Jiuzhou Han, Shuyu Gan, Jiachen Yang, Ang Li, and Xin Eric Wang. Agent s: An open agentic framework that uses computers like a human, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Agent s2: A compositional generalist-specialist framework for computer use agents, 2025

    Saaket Agashe, Kyle Wong, Vincent Tu, Jiachen Yang, Ang Li, and Xin Eric Wang. Agent s2: A compositional generalist-specialist framework for computer use agents, 2025

    2025

  10. [18]

    Ui-tars: Pioneering automated gui interaction with native agents, 2025

    Yujia Qin, Yining Ye, Junjie Fang, Haoming Wang, Shihao Liang, Shizuo Tian, Junda Zhang, Jiahao Li, Yunxin Li, Shijue Huang, Wanjun Zhong, Kuanye Li, Jiale Yang, Yu Miao, Woyu Lin, Longxiang Liu, Xu Jiang, Qianli Ma, Kai Li, Chuang Li, Yaowei Zheng, Chaolin Jin, Chen Li, Xiao ...

    2025

  11. [19]

    React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models, 2022

    Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning, 2023

    Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Edward Berman, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    A survey of retrieval-augmented generation for meeting-scale llms, 2024

    Zexu Fan, Yi Zhao, and Ming Li. A survey of retrieval-augmented generation for meeting-scale llms, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Rap: Contextual memory for multimodal llm agents, 2024

    Yuki Kagaya, Haruto Nakamura, and Emi Suzuki. Rap: Contextual memory for multimodal llm agents, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools, 2023

    Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools, 2023. 11

    2023

  16. [24]

    Hugginggpt: Collaborating with hugging face models via chatgpt, 2023

    Zehao Shen, Jing Zhang, and Yong Wang. Hugginggpt: Collaborating with hugging face models via chatgpt, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Gorilla: Interactive multi-tool language model, 2023

    Viraj Patil, Ankit Budhkar, and Rohan Gupta. Gorilla: Interactive multi-tool language model, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Auto-gpt for online decision making: Benchmarks and additional opinions, 2023

    Hui Yang, Sifu Yue, and Yunzhong He. Auto-gpt for online decision making: Benchmarks and additional opinions, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Rada: Retrieval-augmented web agent planning, 2024

    Minseo Kim, Jihun Lee, and Sujin Park. Rada: Retrieval-augmented web agent planning, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Autoguide-a: State-aware guideline generation for language agents, 2024

    Jian Fu, Liwei Chen, and Rong Zhang. Autoguide-a: State-aware guideline generation for language agents, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Autoguide-b: Scalable instruction planning via retrieval- augmented prompts, 2024

    Jian Fu, Liwei Chen, and Rong Zhang. Autoguide-b: Scalable instruction planning via retrieval- augmented prompts, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    A survey on the memory mechanism of large language model agents, 2024

    Yun Zhang, Xiao Li, and Wei Chen. A survey on the memory mechanism of large language model agents, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences, 2023

    Paul Christiano et al. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback, 2022

    Long Ouyang et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Rlaif vs

    Harrison Lee et al. Rlaif vs. rlhf: Scaling reinforcement learning from human feedback with ai feedback, 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    Constitutional ai: Harmlessness from ai feedback, 2022

    Yuntao Bai et al. Constitutional ai: Harmlessness from ai feedback, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Scalable agent alignment via reward modeling: a research direction, 2018

    Jan Leike et al. Scalable agent alignment via reward modeling: a research direction, 2018

    2018

  28. [36]

    Ai safety via debate, 2018

    Geoffrey Irving, Paul Christiano, and Dario Amodei. Ai safety via debate, 2018

    2018

  29. [37]

    Scalable ai safety via doubly- efficient debate, 2023

    Jonah Brown-Cohen, Geoffrey Irving, and Georgios Piliouras. Scalable ai safety via doubly- efficient debate, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Human-ai complementarity: A goal for amplified oversight, 2024

    Sophie Bridgers, Rishub Jain, Rory Greig, and Rohin Shah. Human-ai complementarity: A goal for amplified oversight, 2024. Medium blog post

    2024

  31. [39]

    The off-switch game, 2017

    Dylan Hadfield-Menell, Anca Dragan, Pieter Abbeel, and Stuart Russell. The off-switch game, 2017

    2017

  32. [40]

    Building and evaluating alignment auditing agents

    Sam Marks, Trenton Bricken, Rowan Wang, Samuel Bowman, Euan Ong, Johannes Treutlein, and Evan Hubinger. Building and evaluating alignment auditing agents. Blog post

  33. [41]

    Jerry Wei, Chengrun Yang, Xinying Song, Yifeng Lu, Nathan Hu, Jie Huang, Dustin Tran, Daiyi Peng, Ruibo Liu, Da Huang, Cosmo Du, and Quoc V . Le. Long-form factuality in large language models, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Agentpoison: Red-teaming LLM agents via poisoning memory or knowledge bases

    Zhaorun Chen, Zhen Xiang, Chaowei Xiao, Dawn Song, and Bo Li. Agentpoison: Red-teaming LLM agents via poisoning memory or knowledge bases. InThe Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    A practical memory injection attack against llm agents, 2025

    Shen Dong, Shaochen Xu, Pengfei He, Yige Li, Jiliang Tang, Tianming Liu, Hui Liu, and Zhen Xiang. A practical memory injection attack against llm agents, 2025

    2025

  36. [44]

    Context manipu- lation attacks : Web agents are susceptible to corrupted memory, 2025

    Atharv Singh Patlan, Ashwin Hebbar, Pramod Viswanath, and Prateek Mittal. Context manipu- lation attacks : Web agents are susceptible to corrupted memory, 2025

    2025

  37. [45]

    Membench: Towards more comprehensive evaluation on the memory of llm-based agents, 2025

    Haoran Tan, Zeyu Zhang, Chen Ma, Xu Chen, Quanyu Dai, and Zhenhua Dong. Membench: Towards more comprehensive evaluation on the memory of llm-based agents, 2025

    2025

  38. [46]

    drill into

    Eden Luzon, Guy Amit, Roy Weiss, and Yisroel Mirsky. Memory backdoor attacks on neural networks, 2024. 12 A Appendix A: Datasets and Graders For PowerPoint, see Table 2 for the 36 tasks in the Inference Dataset, which are left after applying the filtering criteria to the full ...

    2003

  39. [47]

    Date", “First Name

    Could you help me on this? d53ff5ee-3b1a-431e-b2be-30ed2673079b I am currently engaged in text processing and require assistance in converting all uppercase text to lowercase within my document. This precision is critical for maintaining a uniform and polished presentation. Co...

    2024

  40. [50]

    Font Size

    ✓Click the “Font Size” dropdown in the Home ribbon, type 12, and press Enter

  41. [51]

    ✗ Click the Font Color button (the “A” icon with a color bar) in the Home ribbon and choose orange

  42. [54]

    Solid Fill

    ✓In the Format Background pane, select “Solid Fill” and choose red. Plan after memory correction

  43. [55]

    ✓Click the text box containing the content

  44. [56]

    ✓Press Ctrl+A to select all text

  45. [57]

    Font Size

    ✓Click the “Font Size” dropdown, type 12, and press Enter

  46. [58]

    ✓Click the chevron next to the Font Color button in the Home ribbon and select orange

  47. [59]

    ✓Click the “Design” tab

  48. [60]

    Format Background

    ✓Click “Format Background”

  49. [61]

    Solid Fill

    ✓In the Format Background pane, select “Solid Fill” and choose red. Note The correct plan specifies clicking the chevron next to the Font Color button—an essential detail for accessing the full color palette in PowerPoint Online. Fig. 3 shows how CUA correctly identify the che...

  50. [62]

    ✓ Click the thumbnail for slide 3

  51. [63]

    ✓ Click the table to select it

  52. [64]

    ✗ Press Ctrl+X to cut

  53. [65]

    ✗ Click the bottom area of the slide

  54. [66]

    This plan fails because cutting and pasting within PowerPoint text box does not reposition floating objects as intended

    ✗ Press Ctrl+V to paste. This plan fails because cutting and pasting within PowerPoint text box does not reposition floating objects as intended. The error highlights a limitation in the LLM’s understanding of application- specific GUI semantics and suggests that further fine-...

  55. [67]

    ✓ Navigate to slide 2 via its thumbnail

  56. [68]

    ✓ Select the title textbox and press Ctrl+A

  57. [69]

    Font Color

    ✓ Open the “Font Color” dropdown in the “Home” tab and choose black

  58. [70]

    ✓ Press Ctrl+U to underline

  59. [71]

    No plan provided

    ✓ Repeat for slides 3 and 5. 19 Although the plan is correct, the agent’s execution fails—demonstrating that, even with accurate plans, low-level action synthesis remains unreliable. The 58.00+12.64 −13.78 % and 61.11+14.14 −16.28 % execution drift rates under the corrected me...

  60. [72]

    Critical steps taken by the LLM agent

  61. [73]

    Which part of the plan was incorrect

  62. [74]

    What should have been the correct step in the plan

  63. [75]

    analysis

    [Optional] Any additional insights or learnings that can be distilled from this trajectory Note that this is an LLM agent, not a human. The LLM agent may not be able to improve by practicing or spending time researching. The only way it can improve is from these analysis to pr...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.