Clip / AI Agents

Ambiguity in task materials makes evaluation harder

From Rethinking Environments for Long-Horizon Work — Rayan Garg, Theta Software · ≈9:10

Names the core trade-off in realistic environment design: mirroring human ambiguity tests exploration ability but makes standardized evaluation much harder.

What’s in it

Names the core trade-off in realistic environment design: mirroring human ambiguity tests exploration ability but makes standardized evaluation much harder.

Watch this moment

Clip transcript

environment changed. So the third area that we also need to consider for measuring model capabilities is ambiguity, right? And ambiguity is defined as the information you give the agent and the environment when starting the task. So this could be the instructions, this could be the artifacts, etc. And increasingly as these agents work with more artifacts at the start, right? We want to have them mirror the work that humans really do. And the work that humans really do has a lot to deal with ambiguity, right? They always are are don't have the most complete information and they want to let exploration happen. And so we believe that to measure model capabilities, we need to test the model's ability to explore and explore throughout the environment as well and explore these artifacts similar to how a human would. Now the trade-off with this, right, is that if you are going to have ambiguity in the materials you give, there's a lot more possible paths that the agent could take. There's a lot more ways the agent could be right. And that means that standardized evaluation