GO TO A SECTION

↑ ↓ to navigate · Enter to openExplore all sections →
FDEInterviews logo
NeurIPS 2025

Measuring AI Ability to Complete Long Software Tasks

Translate agent benchmark scores into human task difficulty, distinguish a 50% horizon from safe autonomy and design a customer-specific reliability evaluation.

Breakdown by FDE Interviews · 11 min read · Updated

About the original · 2025
AUTHORS
Kwa, West, Becker, Deng, et al.
FROM
Model Evaluation & Threat Research (METR)
PUBLISHED
Mar 2025 · NeurIPS 2025
IN THIS BREAKDOWN · 10 SECTIONS

You can read 17% of this breakdown.

01

The paper in one minute

An agent's fifty-percent task horizon is the human duration of tasks it completes with roughly even odds under the evaluation setup. If the horizon is an hour, that describes work taking the reference humans about an hour. It does not mean the agent can safely operate for an hour, or that it takes an hour to produce its answer.

METR measures human performance on software and research tasks, runs agents repeatedly on those tasks, and fits a relationship between human task time and agent success. That produces a more interpretable capability measure than a single average benchmark score. The paper then studies how the fitted horizon changes across historical model releases.

The reviewed version finds a strong historical growth trend, with an estimated doubling time of roughly seven months. The authors also discuss substantial limits: the tasks are selected, the reference humans matter, and less structured work can behave differently. Extrapolating the trend is a conditional forecast rather than a delivery commitment.

The important deployment lesson is to state the required reliability. A fifty-percent success boundary can help compare research systems, but it is far below what many unattended customer actions require. You need a local evaluation and an explicit handoff policy before using a headline horizon to scope automation.

THE IDEA, VISUALLY
A HORIZON NEEDS A RELIABILITY TARGET Human task time describes difficulty. It does not measure how long the agent runs. Success probability 0% 20% 50% 80% 100% 15 30 60 120 240 80% TARGET 30 minutes 50% TARGET 60 minutes Task duration for the reference human (minutes, log scale) Synthetic logistic curve: horizon 60 minutes, slope 2. Validate on your own task distribution.
Original illustration of section 3.1's logistic relationship with our chosen parameters: a 60-minute human-task horizon and slope two. The 80% crossing is 30 minutes. These are teaching values, not measurements or forecasts for a named model.
Research notes: the problem, approach and results
50%

success probability defining the main horizon, section 3.1

207 days

historical doubling estimate in reviewed v4, section 3.2

166–240 days

95% bootstrap interval for that estimate, section 3.2

THE PROBLEM

A benchmark percentage does not readily tell a customer what difficulty of work an agent can complete reliably.

THE IDEA

Measure skilled human task times, evaluate repeated agent attempts and fit success probability against human task duration.

THE RESULT

The historical software-task horizon grows strongly in the study. The metric remains conditional on task distribution, reference humans and the chosen reliability target.

02

Why it matters to an FDE

Customers describe work in familiar units: a short ticket, an afternoon migration, a recurring weekly analysis. Relating agent performance to human task time can make an initial scoping conversation more concrete. It also forces you to define what successful completion means and whose effort supplies the baseline.

That baseline can change the apparent difficulty. A maintainer with repository context may finish quickly; an equally skilled newcomer may spend most of the time finding the relevant files. An agent given a prepared workspace and explicit tests has another information advantage. Record those differences before comparing durations.

Use the paper's method to structure a pilot, then add the bounded autonomy and human review controls the workflow needs. Evaluate permissions and recovery separately from task completion. An agent that reaches the desired output after an unauthorized action has failed the deployment contract even if the benchmark grader accepts its final artifact.

THE FULL BREAKDOWN

Understand the mechanism. Try it on a real problem.

Unlock this breakdown and 199 more papers.

Premium opens every paper in full, plus every answer, concept, course and guide on the site. One payment for six months of access.

6 months · One payment · No auto-renewal

Get Premium · ₹2,000 / $25
  • ◇1 architecture diagram
  • </>2 runnable code blocks
  • ▦3 results tables
  1. 03Key takeaways

    Six qualifications that make the time-horizon metric useful in a customer discussion

    Free account
  2. 04How it works

    Fit success against human duration and interpret the slope before changing the target

    Premium
  3. 05The numbers that matter

    Keep the reviewed version and statistical population attached to the headline trend

    Premium
  4. 06Try it yourself

    Convert a synthetic fifty-percent horizon into stricter reliability targets

    Premium
  5. 07Where it breaks

    Recognize domain shift, ambiguous completion and false precision near high reliability

    Premium
  6. 08Using it on a deployment

    Build a pilot around observed task families, recovery and explicit permission limits

    Premium
  7. 09Interview angles

    Explain the unit, reliability target and evidence needed before permitting longer tasks

    Premium
Back to the paper library →