AgentHorizon: Evaluating Agentic Judges for Long-Horizon Computer-Use Tasks
Abstract
Computer-use agents are capable of completing complex tasks, which is increasingly using automatic judges to determine the success, either for training or for evaluation without human involvement. Despite their flexibility, their reliability on long tasks spanning multiple applications remains unclear. A trajectory, composed of long sequences of screenshots and actions, may appear complete, but in reality violates constraints from the instruction or introducing an unwanted side effect. To identifying these errors, a judge needs to carefully examine the trajectory with respect to the user's instruction. To this end, we introduce AgentHorizon, a benchmark of 1,373 computer-use tasks (instructions and trajectories pairs) drawn from 166 hours of human-recorded trajectories spanning three operating systems. By recording trajectories for closely related instructions, we can construct negative tasks by simply swapping the instructions. This paired design evaluates judges in their ability to distinguish a truly successful trajectory from one that completed a similar (but incompatible) request. We release the benchmark under three splits: a frontier split, AgentHorizon (AH), simplified split, AgentHorizon-Simple (AH-S), and a development split, AgentHorizon-Development (AH-D). We further evaluate eleven judges by (1) directly passing the full trajectory (with up to 300 screenshots and actions), and (2) by using them as coding agent across five agent harnesses. We find that our best agentic judge, GPT-5.5, achieves 80.9% balanced accuracy on the AH subset. We find that tool-use improves certain models but results in worse performance for open-weight models, and that judges differ drastically in their ability to accept a valid trajectory reject failed ones. Our findings highlight the need for judges that are capable of locating and verifying often hidden evidence that a task was properly completed inside long interaction histories. We release our benchmark and reuslts publicly.
est. 32% chance this paper gets accepted at ICLR 2027.
What do you think this paper will get?
All positions stay anonymous.