The Horizon Gap: Planning, Memory, Execution, Training, and Evaluation for Long-Horizon LLM Agents

arXiv:2608.06663 · cs.CL · Submitted 2026-08-07 · Read on arXiv

Mingguang Chen, Licheng Wang, Bo Qu

cs.CL

Submitted: 2026-08-07

Updated: 2026-08-10

Comments: 39 pages, 6 figures

License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

The gist: Frontier language models solve reasoning problems in a single forward pass that would have been research contributions years ago, yet fail at multi-hour tasks: losing track of earlier decisions,

Terminology

Abstract

Frontier language models solve reasoning problems in a single forward pass that would have been research contributions years ago, yet fail at multi-hour tasks: losing track of earlier decisions, declaring half-finished work done, or drifting from goals. We call this the horizon gap and survey 1,547 arXiv papers (2024-2026) collected via systematic seed harvest with a disclosed 26.8% bleed filter, extended by targeted supplementation. We disambiguate three routinely conflated properties: long-horizon (task property: required steps), long-context (model property: token capacity), and long-term memory (system property: persistence across steps/sessions). We organize the corpus into six categories tracking a long-horizon task's lifecycle -- planning, memory, execution, training, evaluation, and foundations/safety -- crossed with an axis capturing where horizons are carried (within-context, within-task-beyond-context, or cross-task-persistent). Across all categories, we find the same pattern: outcome-only signals grow uninformative as horizons lengthen, and the field's response -- whether process reward models, credit assignment, or trajectory-level diagnostics -- manufactures denser step-level signals. We treat critical and diagnostic literature as first-class threads throughout, arguing that segregating critique from method would routinely split single papers across chapters. We close by naming open measurement problems: decomposing model versus harness capability, managing correlated bias in process-level signals used for both training and evaluation, and whether long-horizon reliability admits general predictive theory.

Sources

Related papers