arXiv subjects

Daniel Yue Zhang

Publications and source records attributed to Daniel Yue Zhang.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

READY or Not: Reliable Enterprise Agent Deployment

An AI agent can perform well on benchmarks and still be unsuitable for deployment. Existing AI-agent benchmarks measure whether an agent can complete realistic professional work, whereas enterprise deployment asks a different question: whether an agent can meet a required reliability level, under acceptable human oversight, and at tolerable cost. We introduce Reliable Enterprise Agent Deployment (READY), a framework for qualifying AI agents for deployment on enterprise workflows. READY preserves each workflow's own definition of successful execution while applying a common qualification procedure. Given an agent, a workflow, and a class of candidate oversight policies, READY measures the reliability and operating cost of the human-AI system, selects the minimum-cost policy that satisfies a specified reliability target, and statistically qualifies it on held-out cases. The resulting deployment profile characterizes the supported operating point: reliability, human-oversight burden, and cost. READY is implemented as an open testbed that decouples workflow specification, execution, evaluation, and qualification, and runs on existing agent-evaluation infrastructure. In an end-to-end clinical-audit case study spanning 16 agent systems and 750 cases, READY reveals differences hidden by autonomous performance: two systems separated by only 0.3 points in autonomous accuracy (72.8% vs. 72.5%) require 39.2% versus 29.6% human review, respectively, to qualify at the same 76% reliability target under the evaluated oversight policy. READY thus shifts enterprise agent evaluation from how well can the agent perform the work? to under what conditions, and at what cost, can it be reliably deployed? By making those conditions explicit and statistically testable, READY provides a basis for comparing agent systems, setting oversight requirements, and making evidence-based deployment decisions.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

PropUQ-MAS: Propagation-Aware Uncertainty Quantification for LLM Multi-Agent Systems

LLM-based multi-agent systems (MAS) solve complex tasks through communication among role-specialized agents. However, inter-agent dependencies introduce reliability risks beyond isolated agent failures. For instance, errors in intermediate messages could be inherited and amplified by downstream agents. Existing uncertainty quantification (UQ) methods mainly target isolated responses or single-agent reasoning, and therefore fail to capture uncertainty propagation in MAS. To this end, we propose PropUQ-MAS, an error propagation-aware UQ framework that represents MAS execution as a communication-structured graph and estimates each step's reliability by combining local uncertainty with uncertainty inherited from upstream messages. Extensive experiments demonstrate that PropUQ-MAS consistently improves UQ in MAS, with average relative gains of +6.10% in AUROC and +47.58% in PRR.

cs.MA↗

arXiv2026

Spine-Branch Coordination for Multi-agent Computer Use

Computer use agents (CUAs) are increasingly deployed as multi-agent systems that decompose a task into multiple subtasks executed across parallel virtual machines (VMs). However, a critical physical bottleneck is that the state of two VMs cannot be merged. Previous systems handle this ad-hoc rather than treating it as a first-class concern. We propose Spine-Branch Coordination for multi-agent computer use, a framework that decomposes a task into a "spine-branch" graph, where the spine carries the main task flow with continuous VM state and branch tasks execute in parallel to collect information the spine needs to complete the task. Branch VMs are discarded once their tasks finish, so no VM merging ever occurs. Experiments show that on 200 long-horizon tasks from Odysseys and across three CUA backbones, Spine-Branch improves success rate over the baseline system by 6.0% to 16.5%, while reducing per-task cost by 34% to 70%, indicating that explicitly modeling VM-state merging constraint enables multi-agent computer use to scale efficiently.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

ChainWorld: Composing Long-Horizon Desktop Workloads from Atomic OSWorld Tasks

Computer use agents are evaluated almost exclusively on atomic desktop tasks, but realistic desktop work requires sustaining state across multiple objectives. We study this gap with ChainWorld, which composes atomic OSWorld tasks into long horizon desktop workloads through directional compatibility search while preserving the source evaluators. The resulting workload contains 347 chains of length two to four and compares two renderings of the same task sequence. In single turn evaluation, all tasks are presented together in one prompt. In multi turn evaluation, tasks are revealed one at a time. Across four current computer use agents, maximum chain completion is 31%. Multi turn evaluation improves completion for three models, but both protocols remain challenging. The two protocols also expose different failure profiles. Single turn failures concentrate on artifact precision, while multi turn failures more often reflect session management problems such as fragmented progress and later turn disengagement.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Rubric Dropout: A Simple Way to Mitigate Reward Hacking in Rubric-as-Reward RL

Reinforcement learning against rubrics, lists of criteria graded by an LLM judge, has become a standard way to post-train language models on tasks with no deterministic answer. The rubric, however, is a fixed proxy for quality, never a complete description of it, and a policy trained against it long enough will learn to exploit the difference. We measure this directly. Training Qwen3-8B with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) on medical and science rubrics and grading out-of-distribution (OOD) benchmarks with both the training judge and a stronger gold judge, we find that the two scores diverge during training. The training judge's score keeps climbing while the gold judge's score peaks and then falls, by 3 points on HealthBench-Hard and by 22 points on ResearchQA. A judge with a fixed bias would shift the gold curve by a constant, not send it down while the training score rises, so the divergence is reward hacking, not judge noise. We propose Rubric Dropout, a one-line fix borrowed from neuron dropout. At every step, we randomly drop a subset of the rubric's criteria before computing the reward, so the policy never optimizes the same rubric twice. The dropped subset is shared across each rollout group, so GRPO's group-relative advantages stay comparable, and evaluation always uses the full rubric. Comparing no dropout against dropout at 30% and 50% on both benchmark pairs, dropout raises the OOD gold score at every matched checkpoint (+1 to +2 points on HealthBench-Hard, +6 to +7 points on ResearchQA), lowers the two hacking measures we track, and costs nothing in domain. Sweeping the dropout fraction shows a broad 30-50% sweet spot, while the natural alternative, reweighting criteria by how useful they are to training, performs worse than no intervention at all in our setting.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

CliniCARE-Bench: Clinical Calibrated Audit of Medical Reasoning in EHR

Large language models perform strongly on medical knowledge benchmarks, but reliable clinical deployment requires agents to conduct defensible investigations over heterogeneous, longitudinal records: determining what evidence is needed, retrieving and reconciling structured and free-text data, grounding conclusions in verifiable evidence, and deferring cases that cannot be resolved reliably. We introduce CliniCARE-Bench (Clinical Calibrated Audit of Medical Reasoning in EHR), a benchmark for retrospective clinical audit: 25 clinician-validated scenarios instantiated as 750 patient-specific cases over real-patient-derived MIMIC-IV data. Systems investigate each case through a governed, logged tool environment for record retrieval, computation, and policy access, and return one of four verdicts---Yes, No, Indeterminate: Lack of Data, or Indeterminate: Medically Ambiguous---the last two separating missing evidence from residual medical ambiguity. Beyond verdict accuracy, we score patient-evidence and policy grounding, process adherence, calibrated abstention, reliability, and efficiency against case-level reference verdicts produced by independent multi-model adjudication and calibrated against Clinical Board review. Every retrieval, computation, and report is replayable, so the investigation trace is inspectable and scorable. To our knowledge, CliniCARE-Bench is the first deployment-oriented clinical-agent benchmark to jointly evaluate real longitudinal EHR investigation, claim-level evidence grounding, governing-policy use, process adherence, and calibrated abstention within a common patient-level adjudication framework. Across 16 agentic systems, four-way accuracy spans 65.3-76.1%, but raw accuracy overstates investigation quality. Defect-free accuracy, which credits a verdict only when correct and free of prohibited shortcuts, is 4.8-14.8 points lower and reorders the leaderboard.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

MCP-Atlas: A Large-Scale Benchmark for Tool-Use Competency with Real MCP Servers

The Model Context Protocol (MCP) is emerging as a standard interface through which large language model (LLM) agents discover and invoke external tools. However, existing MCP evaluations fall short along three key axes: realistic multi-step workflows with cross-server orchestration, breadth across authentic MCP servers rather than mocks, and structured, reproducible claim-level scoring disentangled from agent verbosity or style. We introduce MCP-Atlas, a benchmark for measuring tool-use competency against production MCP servers. MCP-Atlas contains 1,000 natural-language tasks written and verified by human experts spanning 36 real MCP servers and 220 tools. Prompts do not specify servers, tools, or parameters, requiring agents to identify relevant tools among semantically plausible distractors and to compose multi-step, cross-server workflows. Each task is scored with a claim-level rubric, where final answers are scored against atomic factual claims grounded in tool outputs. This answer-centric scoring permits valid alternative tool-call trajectories to receive credit. We pair this with an 11-category diagnostic taxonomy that disentangles tool-call failures from cognitive failures in task understanding, synthesis, parsing, and stopping. Evaluating 20 frontier models from six providers under matched task-level conditions, we find pass rates up to 82.2% at a 0.75 claim coverage threshold and a clear three-tier performance structure. Automated diagnostics show that 63.3% of diagnosed failures are cognitive rather than tool-call related. Notably, several high-performing models fail after successful tool execution due to premature stopping or incorrect synthesis. We release the task schema, containerized harness, claim evaluator, and a 500-task public split, while reserving a 500-task private split to preserve leaderboard integrity. The code is at https://github.com/scaleapi/mcp-atlas.

cs.SE↗