# The Tasteful Agent: Measuring and Improving Taste in Long-Horizon Tasks

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.25804 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.25804/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 36 of its 57 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 22 Sep 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/agents/general-llm-agent-frameworks-and-benchmarks/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 36)

- [Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1503.02531/) (2015)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.03688/) (2023)
- [A General Language Assistant as a Laboratory for Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.00861/) (2021)
- [DeepSeek-V4: Towards Highly Efficient Million-Token Context Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.19348/) (2026)
- [STaR: Bootstrapping Reasoning With Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.14465/) (2022)
- [On-Policy Distillation of Language Models: Learning from Self-Generated Mistakes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.13649/) (2023)
- [Math-Shepherd: Verify and Reinforce LLMs Step-by-step without Human Annotations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.08935/) (2023)
- [AlphaEvolve: A coding agent for scientific and algorithmic discovery](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.13131/) (2025)
- [MLAgentBench: Evaluating Language Agents on Machine Learning Experimentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03302/) (2023)
- [Can LLMs Generate Novel Research Ideas? A Large-Scale Human Study with 100+ NLP Researchers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.04109/) (2024)
- [Darwin Godel Machine: Open-Ended Evolution of Self-Improving Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.22954/) (2025)
- [Reinforcement Learning via Self-Distillation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.20802/) (2026)
- [SWE-Bench Pro: Can AI Agents Solve Long-Horizon Software Engineering Tasks?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.16941/) (2025)
- [Judging the Judges: A Systematic Study of Position Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.07791/) (2024)
- [Agent-as-a-Judge: Evaluate Agents with Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.10934/) (2024)
- [Trial and Error: Exploration-Based Trajectory Optimization for LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.02502/) (2024)
- [Which Agent Causes Task Failures and When? On Automated Failure Attribution of LLM Multi-Agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.00212/) (2025)
- [RE-Bench: Evaluating frontier AI R&D capabilities of language model agents against human experts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15114/) (2024)
- [Towards End-to-End Automation of AI Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.15497/) (2026)
- [Measuring AI Ability to Complete Long Software Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.14499/) (2025)
- [Learning by Distilling Context](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.15189/) (2022)
- [AgenTracer: Who Is Inducing Failure in the LLM Agentic Systems?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.03312/) (2025)
- [AgentRewardBench: Evaluating Automatic Evaluations of Web Agent Trajectories](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.08942/) (2025)
- [Live-SWE-agent: Can Software Engineering Agents Self-Evolve on the Fly?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.13646/) (2025)
- [Kosmos: An AI Scientist for Autonomous Discovery](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.02824/) (2025)
- [The Ideation-Execution Gap: Execution Outcomes of LLM-Generated versus Human Research Ideas](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.20803/) (2025)
- [SWE-EVO: Benchmarking Coding Agents in Long-Horizon Software Evolution Scenarios](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.18470/) (2025)
- [Web-Shepherd: Advancing PRMs for Reinforcing Web Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.15277/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

LLM agents increasingly work on long-horizon tasks, and the decisions they make along the way, such as which hypothesis to test or which implementation to build on, determine the outcome of the whole run. Making these decisions well is becoming a key capability for both engineering and research agents. We refer to the ability to make good long-horizon decisions as the taste of an agent. While existing benchmarks measure the end-to-end success of agents on long-horizon tasks, none of them measures the taste of an agent. To address this problem, we build Taste-Bench, a benchmark of taste questions constructed automatically from trajectories that agents produced in engineering and research tasks. Each question presents a decision fork, a point in a trajectory where multiple directions are available and one of them leads to a better outcome, and the evaluated model chooses among these directions without seeing what happens after the fork. We mine these forks automatically from parallel attempts at the same task and from detours inside a single trajectory, without needing human annotation. We evaluate frontier models on Taste-Bench and find that the best model answers only 59.7% of the questions correctly. We further find that forks whose deciding evidence appears later in the trajectory are much harder for every model, and that a larger reasoning budget does not improve the accuracy. Finally, we show that taste can be trained. We distill the judgment of a teacher that has seen the outcome into a student model, and the student makes better decisions on unseen tasks and improves end-to-end success on held-out SWE-bench Pro tasks.