Skip to content

CURA: Certified Runtime Alarms for Computer-Use Agents

Aug 2026 · 1 citation · 117 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

This work introduces CURA (Certified Runtime Alarms for Computer-Use Agents), an external monitor that reads only harness-visible telemetry, with no model internals, extra LLM calls, or prompt changes, and turns the running trajectory into a sequential test with certified false-alarm control.

Abstract

Self-report is the cheapest oversight channel a deployer has, and on capable computer-use agents (CUAs) it fails precisely where oversight matters. On 361 OSWorld tasks our pipeline, a read-only feasibility gate, a planner, and a GUI executor, reaches a mean task score of 82.9, above the 72.4 human reference, yet 64 of its 71 failures (90%) end with a success claim, 61 acknowledging no blocker, and the explicit failure affordance is never used in roughly 9,100 calls. We introduce CURA (Certified Runtime Alarms for Computer-Use Agents), an external monitor that reads only harness-visible telemetry, with no model internals, extra LLM calls, or prompt changes, and turns the running trajectory into a sequential test with certified false-alarm control. At alpha = 0.10 its CUSUM alarm detects 42.3% of failures a median of 31 steps before termination at a realized false-alarm rate of 0.066, and risk is partly resolvable before the first action (gate probe, 0.69 AUROC). Retrospectively the composite reaches 0.828 AUROC (fold-internal floor 0.802), but its margin over a total-token baseline is not significant (Delta = +0.026, p = 0.101); the separation is online, where CURA recalls more at matched certified budgets: 0.41 versus 0.34 at alpha = 0.10, 0.56 versus 0.38 at alpha = 0.20. Alarm-gated mid-execution oversight recovers 23 of 70 failures while spending a frontier overseer on 38, giving a deployable cascade at mean score 86.8 and 84.5% full-solve (305 of 361). The certificate bounds false alarms only. We also report where behavioral monitoring is uninformative.

View source

Similar papers

Preprint Aug 2026

Real-Time Detection and Repair of LLM Agent Failures

This work adds a layer carrying deterministic verification, which recomputes a run's stated total from the tool results it actually received and confirms every required call was made, and asks how much detection is achievable from observable step telemetry alone, using monitors costing microseconds per step and trained...

S. Dubey · 3 citations
#machine learning Preprint Aug 2026

Look Before You Leap: Pre-Action Verification for LLM Agents

It is argued that a cheap deterministic check, run before an action takes effect, is an effective and underused form of agent oversight, and it is studied across two action modalities in one framework.

Asaad Althoubi · 1 citation
Preprint Aug 2026

ADeptS-Bench: Measuring the Trustworthiness of Computer Use Agents Across Devices

ADeptS-Bench is introduced, a dual-stream trustworthiness benchmark, grounded in the ADEPTS capability framework and general population user studies, and reveals that all models overestimate consequence severity, mirroring the over-refusal bias observed in safety.

Joy Chen, Alejandro Castillejo Munoz, P. D'Oro et al. · 0 citations
Jul 2026

How Benchmarks Mis-Score Computer-Use Agents

A three-tier diagnostic taxonomy shows that verification/feedback and planning failures dominate execution/grounding errors, while a single scalar success rate can not explain, and connects these findings to newer long-horizon CUA benchmarks and derive stage-specific design rules for CUA evaluation.

Zi-Han Dong, Zhiyuan Ma, Zekun Wang et al. · 2 citations
#machine learning Preprint Aug 2026

CatchBench: When Can an Agent Failure Be Caught?

CatchBench puts one auditor's question to three information states: the declared configuration before a run (PRE), a growing prefix of its trace (LIVE), and the finished trace (POST), which none scores all three under one task-method interface.

Yue Zhao, Meng-Yuan Li, Ruo-Lin Li et al. · 4 citations · ⚡1

Related blog posts

MIT News · Artificial Intelligence Sep 29, 2026

Who we become when we talk to machines

Professor Sherry Turkle’s new book, “Artificial Intimacy,” offers a withering critique of chatbots and the antisocial dynamics she believes they encourage.

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.