Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study analyzes a production enterprise agent, Leni, which utilizes verification loops and specialist models to enhance reliability in multi-step tasks. By evaluating Leni against three benchmarks that highlight different failure modes, the authors found significant performance improvements, with the full system outperforming its base model by up to 15 percentage points in certain scenarios. The research reveals that the majority of reliability gains stem from scaffolding and routing strategies rather than the verification step itself, which has a modest isolated contribution but is crucial for converting failing tasks at the top of the score distribution.
Scaffolding and specialist models drive a remarkable 11% improvement in enterprise agent reliability, overshadowing the verification step's modest gains.
Multi-step enterprise agent tasks fail in a characteristic way: single-pass inference has no checkpoint between deciding an answer and committing to it. We study one production system (Leni) whose architecture installs such checkpoints: verification loops (execute, observe, compare, correct) staffed by lightweight task-specialized post-trained models. We evaluate the unmodified production configuration on three public benchmarks stressing distinct failure modes: SpreadsheetBench Verified (silent computation error), BullshitBench v2 (premise confabulation), and the GAIA validation split (cascade error over long tool chains). The full system improves over its frontier base model by +11.0 percentage points on SpreadsheetBench (91.25% vs 80.25%, n=400, p<0.001), +7 to +10 percentage points on BullshitBench (98% vs 91%, n=100), and roughly +15 points on GAIA validation (75.2% pass@1, n=165; 83.0% best-of-k). Our central contribution is a decomposition of that uplift: most of it comes from scaffolding, routing, and specialist models rather than from the verification step itself, whose isolated contribution is small (+1.5 points) but concentrated at the top of the score distribution, where it converts otherwise-failing tasks. We instrument the loop end-to-end, yielding an empirical verifier confusion matrix (catch rate about 0.20, fix rate 0.75, no false-alarm regressions) that grounds a compounding-reliability model. Specialist-swap ablations suggest that the loop's value depends on who observes it: replacing the small trained verifier with the generating frontier model eliminates most rescues. A valid-premise control shows zero over-rejections in 100 expert-level questions.