Last Step Matters: Early Uncertainty Cannot Predict Failure in Long-Horizon Agents

Abstract

Early failure prediction is important for long-horizon agents, as it enables timely intervention and can reduce inference and tool-use costs. Uncertainty quantification, such as verbal confidence and perplexity, offers a promising approach to detecting agent failures; however, it has not been explored whether these signals retain their discriminative power during the intermediate stages of long-horizon execution. We evaluate mainstream uncertainty signals on deep-research tasks and find that verbal confidence reliably distinguishes failures at trajectory completion, achieving a mean AUROC of 0.85, whereas all evaluated signals offer limited predictive value earlier in execution, with none exceeding a mean AUROC of 0.60 at 50% trajectory progress. We identify an underlying mechanism explaining this gap: path switching, where agents frequently abandon their current search direction in-trajectory, breaking the link between early signal and final outcome. These findings challenge the assumption that intermediate uncertainty can reliably guide early intervention. They also motivate a practical recommendation for agent harnesses in deep-research settings: use final-step confidence to decide whether to restart, an approach that our experiments find more effective than in-trajectory intervention.