Set-shifting Behavioral Test for Harnessed Agents

Ye Ziwei

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2607.13396

Set-shifting Behavioral Test for Harnessed Agents

Ye Ziwei

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

What happens to an LLM agent's tool choice when the reliable tool silently changes within an ongoing session? We borrow the notion of set-shifting from cognitive psychology to study how well agents adapt to hidden reliability shifts. Our cognitive test for LLM agents mounts libraries of redundant tools and skills, in which many tools solve the same task but differ in hidden reliability. Using a branching schedule, we shift the reliable tool group in the environment and compare it with a stable control, allowing us to isolate the effect of each shift on the agent's behavior. We conduct our study on a panel of LLMs equipped with harnesses and show that the same set of shifts results in distinct behaviors across models: some latch onto a fixed routine within a few turns, whereas others continue to vary. Less capable models often omit the reliable tool group, while frontier models keep calling it alongside the other groups. We introduce a suite of measures to quantify agent behavior after reliability shifts. While policy prompting substantially alters behavior in some tested models, our findings highlight agents' brittleness when changes occur in indirectly observable context.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI cs.CL cs.SE

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Ye Ziwei. 2026-08-28. Set-shifting Behavioral Test for Harnessed Agents. https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.13396

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

cs.AI subject cs.CL subject cs.SE subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Efficient SWE Agent Benchmarking via Trajectory-Aware Evaluation

Evaluating software engineering agents on realistic benchmarks is costly, since each task may require multi-step code exploration, modification, and test execution. Existing efficient evaluation methods select representative subsets to estimate full-benchmark performance, but are largely result-only: they fit historical pass/fail response matrices or static task semantics, discarding how agents solve problems. We propose PTA-IRT, a Privileged Trajectory-Aware Item Response Theory framework that fuses process and outcome signals. Historical execution trajectories supply process-level evidence beyond pass/fail, such as explored context, attempted edits, and solving paths, which PTA-IRT uses as privileged information for calibration subset selection and ability estimation. Under low calibration budgets, PTA-IRT consistently outperforms prior IRT baselines on score and ranking recovery across four SWE benchmarks. Code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/DeepSoftwareAnalytics/PTA-IRT.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

PaperCompiler: Faithful Paper-to-Code Generation via Repository-Level Specification Compilation

Faithfully translating research papers into repository-level implementations remains challenging because papers often describe methods at a high level, leave implementation assumptions implicit, and require generated repositories to preserve method logic, evaluation protocols, and cross-file consistency. Despite recent advances in paper-to-code agents, their intermediate outputs are often presented as free-form plans or summaries that downstream coding agents may ignore, reinterpret, or compress, leading to algorithmic simplification and inconsistent repository structure. To address these challenges, we introduce PaperCompiler, a paper-to-code generation framework that compiles paper-grounded evidence into explicit repository-level implementation specifications. PaperCompiler grounds implementation-relevant evidence while preserving source provenance and distinguishing paper-supported, inferred, externally delegated, and unresolved information. The resulting specifications encode non-degradation requirements, ownership assignments, cross-file dependencies, and file-level constraints. Repository generation proceeds under these compiled specifications while retaining flexibility over local engineering choices not fixed by the paper. PaperCompiler outperforms strong baselines on Paper2CodeBench, achieving a 13.8% relative improvement in reference-based fidelity (from 3.64 to 4.15) and reducing high-severity evaluator critiques (from 13.2% to 6.1%).

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Predicting Program Exit Code with LLMs and Programming Language Semantics

Large language models (LLMs) have shown proficiency in various software engineering tasks, such as code generation and translation. However, a key limitation in their performance may be their (lack of) understanding of programming-language semantics. Even when explicit semantics are given, it remains unclear whether LLMs apply those rules or lean on priors learned during pre-training instead. We study if LLMs lean on priors or given semantics with a novel task--Program Executability Prediction (PrEx)--that asks models to predict whether a program is semantically valid or invalid (and, if invalid, which formal rule it violates) given the program's syntax and operational semantics. Because PrEx requires both valid and invalid programs, we build a dataset with systematically generated invalid transformations derived from valid programs. We evaluate open-source coding LLMs under two semantic formalisms and two semantic shifts across Human-Written, LLM-Translated, and Fuzzer-Generated program splits. Our findings show that LLMs lean on pre-training priors rather than systematically applying the given rules, performing especially poorly on modified semantics and degrading further as program complexity increases. PrEx is available at https://github.com/EngineeringSoftware/prex.

cs.PL↗