# Human-Guided Harm Recovery for Computer Use Agents

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.18847 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.18847/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 17 of its 26 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 20 Apr 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Agent threats, guardrails and governance](https://mlsanity.com/agents/agent-threats-guardrails-and-governance/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 17 of 17)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.05862/) (2022)
- [Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10601/) (2023)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13854/) (2023)
- [WebGPT: Browser-assisted question-answering with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.09332/) (2021)
- [τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12045/) (2024)
- [OSWorld: Benchmarking Multimodal Agents for Open-Ended Tasks in Real Computer Environments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.07972/) (2024)
- [Language Models as Zero-Shot Planners: Extracting Actionable Knowledge for Embodied Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.07207/) (2022)
- [AgentHarm: A Benchmark for Measuring Harmfulness of LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.09024/) (2024)
- [Magentic-One: A Generalist Multi-Agent System for Solving Complex Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.04468/) (2024)
- [Constitutional Classifiers: Defending against Universal Jailbreaks across Thousands of Hours of Red Teaming](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.18837/) (2025)
- [Llama Guard 3 Vision: Safeguarding Human-AI Image Understanding Conversations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.10414/) (2024)
- [OS-Harm: A Benchmark for Measuring Safety of Computer Use Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.14866/) (2025)
- [OpenAgentSafety: A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating Real-World AI Agent Safety](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.06134/) (2025)
- [A Collaborative, Human-Centred Taxonomy of AI, Algorithmic, and Automation Harms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.01294/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

As LM agents gain the ability to execute actions on real computer systems, we need ways to not only prevent harmful actions at scale but also effectively remediate harm when prevention fails. We formalize a solution to this neglected challenge in post-execution safeguards as harm recovery: the problem of optimally steering an agent from a harmful state back to a safe one in alignment with human preferences. We ground preference-aligned recovery through a formative user study that identifies valued recovery dimensions and produces a natural language rubric. Our dataset of 1,130 pairwise judgments reveals context-dependent shifts in attribute importance, such as preferences for pragmatic, targeted strategies over comprehensive long-term approaches. We operationalize these learned insights in a reward model, re-ranking multiple candidate recovery plans generated by an agent scaffold at test time. To evaluate recovery capabilities systematically, we introduce BackBench, a benchmark of 50 computer-use tasks that test an agent's ability to recover from harmful states. Human evaluation shows our reward model scaffold yields higher-quality recovery trajectories than base agents and rubric-based scaffolds. Together, these contributions lay the foundation for a new class of agent safety methods -- ones that confront harm not only by preventing it, but by navigating its aftermath with alignment and intent.