UltraHorizon: Benchmarking LLM-Agent Capabilities in Ultra Long-Horizon Scenarios

Abstract

Autonomous agents have recently achieved remarkable progress across diverse domains, yet most evaluations focus on short-horizon, fully observable tasks. In contrast, many critical real-world tasks, such as large-scale software development, commercial investment, and scientific discovery, unfold in long-horizon and partially observable scenarios where success hinges on sustained reasoning, planning, memory management, and tool use. Existing benchmarks rarely capture these long-horizon challenges, leaving a gap in systematic evaluation. To bridge this gap, we introduce $\textbf{UltraHorizon}$, a novel benchmark that measures the foundational capabilities essential for complex real-world challenges. We use exploration as a unifying task across three distinct environments to validate these core competencies. Agents are designed in long-horizon discovery tasks where they must iteratively uncover hidden rules through sustained reasoning, planning, memory and tools management, and interaction with environments. Under the heaviest scale setting, trajectories average $\textbf{200k+}$ tokens and $\textbf{400+}$ tool calls, whereas in standard configurations they still exceed $\textbf{35k}$ tokens and involve more than $\textbf{60}$ tool calls on average. Our extensive experiments reveal that agents powered by state-of-the-art LLMs consistently underperform in these settings, whereas human participants achieve much higher scores, underscoring a persistent gap in agents' long-horizon exploration abilities. We also observe that simple scaling fails in our task. To better illustrate the failure of agents, we conduct an in-depth analysis of collected trajectories. We identify eight types of errors and attribute them to two primary causes: in-context locking and functional fundamental capability gaps.