arXiv subjects

Radin Shayanfar

Publications and source records attributed to Radin Shayanfar.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Harbor Adapters and Harbor-Index: Infrastructure and a Curated Meta-Dataset for Large-Scale Agentic Evaluation

Evaluating agents on the growing number of agentic benchmarks is challenging because they often require complex environments and agent integrations. We introduce Harbor Adapters, a unified evaluation infrastructure for agentic benchmarks. Our work makes three contributions. First, we develop benchmark adapters that port more than 80 benchmarks to evaluate arbitrary agents, and validate them through rigorous code review and parity experiments. Second, we conduct a large-scale evaluation of 8 models spanning capability tiers across 54 benchmarks; every model is run with Terminus-2 and with one of 3 native harnesses. This enables a broader analysis of agent capabilities and failure modes than was previously possible. Third, we introduce Harbor-Index, a curated set of 82 difficult, diverse, and high-quality tasks spanning 29 benchmarks, refined from the adapted suite through difficulty filtering, AI and human audit, and an audit-and-fix loop. Harbor-Index preserves the challenge and breadth of large-scale agentic evaluations while being affordable to run; no evaluated model-harness configuration exceeds 30% pass rate, and the strongest (GPT-5.5 with Codex) reaches 28.0%. We release the adapters, evaluation results, in-depth analysis, and Harbor-Index as open-source artifacts to support more reliable and comprehensive evaluation of language-model agents.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

What Does an Agentic Software Engineering Benchmark Measure? Profiling Task Demands and Agent Behaviour Beyond What Category Labels Reveal

Agentic software engineering benchmarks are typically summarized by nominal category labels such as "bug fix" or "feature implementation," yet benchmarks carrying the same label are built through very different curation pipelines. A label thus reveals little about the engineering work a benchmark demands. We introduce the Spread--Novelty--Centrality (SNC) profile, a three-axis characterization of the demands of repository-level coding tasks, grounded in empirical software engineering research. We apply the profile to five widely used benchmarks and 14,922 trajectories of two model families at three scales, and report three findings. (1) A label is an unreliable proxy for task demands, as every pair of benchmarks is statistically separated on at least two SNC axes, and the separations trace back to specific curation decisions. (2) Agent behaviour reveals demands that the human-written gold solution cannot. Agents produce larger solutions than the gold where problem statements withhold hints and smaller ones where curation inflates the gold. How a task is phrased shapes what an agent produces. (3) Task demands correlate with success uniformly, with resolved runs concentrating in the low-SNC region for every family and scale, whereas the behavioural signatures of success are family-specific. Claude succeeds by matching the scope of the gold solution, and its parity share on files rises from $0.17$ at the smallest scale to $0.54$ at the largest. Qwen succeeds by exceeding the gold scope at every scale, and editing too little marks failure for both families.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

RedDebate: Safer Responses Through Multi-Agent Red Teaming Debates

We introduce RedDebate, a novel multi-agent debate framework that provides the foundation for Large Language Models (LLMs) to identify and mitigate their unsafe behaviours. AI safety approaches often rely on costly human evaluation or isolated single-model assessment, both constrained by scalability and prone to oversight failures. RedDebate employs collaborative argumentation among multiple LLMs across diverse debate scenarios, enabling them to critically evaluate one another's reasoning and systematically uncover unsafe failure modes through fully automated red-teaming. To support this, we propose designing distinct long-term memory modules that preserve safety-relevant insights from debate interactions and leverage them during subsequent inference, facilitating continuous refinement of model behaviour. Empirical evaluation on safety benchmarks across a diverse set of models demonstrates that RedDebate substantially reduces unsafe outputs. While debate alone allows LLMs to refine their behaviour, the addition of memory yields further error reductions. To the best of our knowledge, RedDebate is the first fully automated framework to unify multi-agent debate and red-teaming to progressively enhance LLM safety without human intervention.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

CoDial: Interpretable Task-Oriented Dialogue Systems Through Dialogue Flow Alignment

Building Task-Oriented Dialogue (TOD) systems that generalize across different tasks remains a challenging problem. Data-driven approaches often struggle to transfer effectively to unseen tasks. While recent schema-based TOD frameworks improve generalization by decoupling task logic from language understanding, their reliance on neural or generative models often obscures how task schemas influence behaviour and hence impair interpretability. In this work, we introduce a novel framework, CoDial (Code for Dialogue), at the core of which is converting a predefined task schema to a structured heterogeneous graph and then to programmatic LLM guardrailing code, such as NVIDIA's Colang. The pipeline enables efficient and interpretable alignment of dialogue policies during inference. We introduce two paradigms for LLM guardrailing code generation, $\text{CoDial}_{\text{free}}$ and $\text{CoDial}_{\text{structured}}$, and propose a mechanism that integrates human feedback to iteratively improve the generated code. Empirically, CoDial achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance on the widely used benchmark datasets, while providing inherent interpretability in the design. We additionally demonstrate CoDial's iterative improvement via manual and LLM-aided feedback, making it a practical tool for human-guided alignment of LLMs in unseen domains.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Misinformation with Legal Consequences (MisLC): A New Task Towards Harnessing Societal Harm of Misinformation

Misinformation, defined as false or inaccurate information, can result in significant societal harm when it is spread with malicious or even innocuous intent. The rapid online information exchange necessitates advanced detection mechanisms to mitigate misinformation-induced harm. Existing research, however, has predominantly focused on assessing veracity, overlooking the legal implications and social consequences of misinformation. In this work, we take a novel angle to consolidate the definition of misinformation detection using legal issues as a measurement of societal ramifications, aiming to bring interdisciplinary efforts to tackle misinformation and its consequence. We introduce a new task: Misinformation with Legal Consequence (MisLC), which leverages definitions from a wide range of legal domains covering 4 broader legal topics and 11 fine-grained legal issues, including hate speech, election laws, and privacy regulations. For this task, we advocate a two-step dataset curation approach that utilizes crowd-sourced checkworthiness and expert evaluations of misinformation. We provide insights about the MisLC task through empirical evidence, from the problem definition to experiments and expert involvement. While the latest large language models and retrieval-augmented generation are effective baselines for the task, we find they are still far from replicating expert performance.

cs.CL↗