arXiv · 2609.39933
ConflictGuide: AutoResearch Improves When Competing Behaviors Are Made Visible
Abstract
When designing machine learning models, desirable properties are often in tension: improving one behavior can impair another, so task progress can depend on alleviating the conflict. LLM-based AutoResearch systems, which iteratively edit model code and retain edits based on scalar task-performance feedback, have largely ignored this trade-off. We find that scalar feedback supports broad exploration early in search, but it does not reveal how edits affect competing behaviors. In matched-budget experiments, introducing competing-behavior feedback as task gains diminish increases the share of proposals that improve both behaviors and sustains progress beyond scalar-only plateaus. Obtaining this feedback for a given model requires identifying its competing behaviors and designing probes to measure them. To make competing-behavior feedback actionable, we introduce ConflictGuide. Its reusable ConflictGuide-Skill combines a literature-grounded taxonomy with model-specific evidence to identify competing behaviors and specify probes for a code agent to implement as metrics. Evolution proceeds in two stages: Stage I explores with task feedback; Stage II uses probe feedback to steer proposals toward conflict alleviation and retains marginal-gain edits only when probes indicate sufficient alleviation. Across five diverse model families, ConflictGuide reduces task and conflict-related errors by up to 28% and 14%, respectively, relative to scalar-only AutoResearch, with gains extending to other code agents.
Explore related subjects
Keep this discovery
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Binqian Xu, Qiran Zou, Xiangbo Shu, Dianbo Liu. 2026-09-30. ConflictGuide: AutoResearch Improves When Competing Behaviors Are Made Visible. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.39933
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.