Ambig-DS: A Benchmark for Task-Framing Ambiguity in Data-Science Agents

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.09698v1
• Date: Sun, 10 May 2026 18:34:12 GMT
• Title: Ambig-DS: A Benchmark for Task-Framing Ambiguity in Data-Science Agents
• Abstract summary: Existing benchmarks score whether the pipeline runs, ignoring whether the agent recognized the task was underspecified.<n>We introduce Ambig-DS, two diagnostic suites: one for prediction-target ambiguity and one for evaluation-objective ambiguity.<n>For every task we pair the original, fully specified version with an ambiguous variant produced by controlled edits.
• Score: 2.3488056916440856
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As data-science agents shift from co-pilots to auto-pilots, silent misframing becomes a critical failure mode. Agents quietly commit to plausible but unintended task framings, producing clean, executable artifacts that hide their incorrect assessment of the task. Existing benchmarks score whether the pipeline runs, ignoring whether the agent recognized the task was underspecified. We introduce Ambig-DS, two diagnostic suites: one for prediction-target ambiguity (Ambig-DS-Target, 51 tasks built on DSBench, a tabular modeling benchmark) and one for evaluation-objective ambiguity (Ambig-DS-Objective, 61 tasks built on MLE-bench, a Kaggle-style ML competition benchmark), constructed so that scoring uses each source benchmark's original evaluator. For every task we pair the original, fully specified version with an ambiguous variant produced by controlled edits; a human-and-LLM verification pipeline confirms each variant admits multiple plausible interpretations with decision-relevant consequences. The suites are analyzed independently and ambiguity lowers performance in both. Across five agents spanning efficient to frontier-class models, we find in our controlled diagnostic setting: (i) failures are silent commitments: wrong-target submissions on Target, wrong-metric or non-committal baseline submissions on Objective, rather than execution errors; (ii) allowing the agent to ask one clarifying question recovers much of the loss under idealized conditions, suggesting missing framing information drives a substantial part of the observed degradation; but (iii) agents cannot reliably tell when to use it: permissive prompts induce over-asking on clear tasks, while conservative prompts induce silent defaulting on ambiguous ones. Recognizing target and objective underspecification, not pipeline execution, is the bottleneck missing from standard DS-agent evaluations.

Related papers

• DPIAgent: Divide, Protocol, Isolate for Agentic Reproduction Test Generation [31.816679197888366]
  DPIAgent is a structured agentic framework built on three principles.<n>It Divides the task into single-objective phases of defect exploration and test generation.<n>It enforces a handoff Protocol that records the diagnosis and test plan, preventing context loss.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-24T14:51:15Z)
• SpecPath: Testing Coding Agents Across Contract-Equivalent Specification Histories [13.437222222971272]
  We identify specification-path sensitivity, a failure mode in which requirement histories that are equivalent in their final meaning lead the same agent system to produce behaviorally different programs.<n>We introduce SpecPath, a diagnostic evaluation that holds the repository, final contract, verifier, agent system, and execution budget fixed while changing only the revision path that leads to the contract.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-10T16:19:00Z)
• From Profiling to Synthesis: Benchmarking Implicit Behavioral Alignment in Personalized LLM Agents [56.187590188698955]
  Large Language Models have enabled increasingly capable autonomous agents, yet personalization remains critical for making such agents practically useful.<n>Recent benchmarks have begun evaluating personalization in agents, but they largely rely on static preference snapshots, fixed interaction logs, or question answering over predefined user profiles.<n>We introduce IBA-Bench, a benchmark for implicit behavioral alignment constructed from longitudinal interaction histories.<n>We propose IBA-Agent, an agent framework that reconciles conflicting priorities through broad retrieval and trajectory-level alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-03T12:52:04Z)
• AgentAbstain: Do LLM Agents Know When Not to Act? [19.223843408018997]
  Existing evaluations mostly focus on task success rather than whether agents know when to abstain.<n>We present the first systematic evaluation framework for agentic abstention: the calibrated ability of tool-using LLM agents to recognize when not to act.<n>AgentAbstain is a paired-task benchmark built on an agent-native taxonomy of 8 abstention scenarios across pre-execution reasoning and runtime discovery.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-11T00:57:36Z)
• What to Test Next: Interpretable Coverage Gap Discovery in Driving VLMs [52.50210189669399]
  Driving vision-language models (VLMs) must accurately understand scenes across diverse conditions defined by Operational Design Domains (ODDs)<n>We propose SliceScorer, a deterministic scoring rule for missing-slice recommendation.<n>We show that SliceNav surfaces high-risk coverage gaps more effectively than prior slice-discovery methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-01T03:18:01Z)
• PRISM: : Planning and Reasoning with Intent in Simulated Embodied Environments [59.07829883257003]
  Built on five multi-room apartments, PRISM structures 300 human-verified tasks into three capability tiers.<n>PRISM exposes an agent-agnostic executable action API that allows arbitrary agents to be evaluated end-to-end.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-12T04:59:47Z)
• Can Agent Benchmarks Support Their Scores? Evidence-Supported Bounds for Interactive-Agent Evaluation [8.049844623361725]
  Interactive agent benchmarks map an agent run to a binary outcome through outcome checks.<n>These checks rely on surface level signals or fail to capture the agent's actual action path.<n>We introduce an outcome evidence reporting layer for existing benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-11T12:20:15Z)
• LiveFMBench: Unveiling the Power and Limits of Agentic Workflows in Specification Generation [75.05397479715576]
  Large language models (LLMs) and agents have shown promising progress, but their true capabilities and failure modes remain unclear.<n>We present the first systematic and contamination-aware study of LLM- and agent-based formal specification generation for C programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-02T11:31:33Z)
• AgentV-RL: Scaling Reward Modeling with Agentic Verifier [63.55502685076245]
  Verifiers have been demonstrated to enhance LLM reasoning via test-time scaling (TTS)<n>We propose Agentic Verifier, a framework that transforms reward modeling into a multi-turn, tool-augmented deliberative process.<n>We show that Agentic Verifier yields consistent performance gains under both parallel and sequential TTS.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-17T12:27:36Z)
• HiL-Bench (Human-in-Loop Benchmark): Do Agents Know When to Ask for Help? [32.54022440678003]
  coding agents solve complex tasks when given complete context but collapse when specifications are incomplete or ambiguous.<n>Current benchmarks are blind to this failure mode.<n>We present HiL-Bench to measure this selective escalation skill.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-10T15:21:44Z)
• Proactive Rejection and Grounded Execution: A Dual-Stage Intent Analysis Paradigm for Safe and Efficient AIoT Smart Homes [37.92248202525651]
  We propose a Dual-Stage Intent-Aware (DS-IA) Framework to separate high-level user intent understanding from low-level physical execution.<n>Tests show DS-IA achieves an Exact Match (EM) rate of 58.56% (outperforming baselines by over 28%) and improves the rejection rate of invalid instructions to 87.04%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-17T07:38:39Z)
• What Makes a Good LLM Agent for Real-world Penetration Testing? [37.56537537883771]
  We analyze 28 LLM-based penetration testing systems and evaluate five representative implementations across three benchmarks of increasing complexity.<n>We show that Type B failures share a root cause that is largely invariant to the underlying LLM: agents lack real-time task difficulty estimation.<n>We present Excalibur, a penetration testing agent that couples strong tooling with difficulty-aware planning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-19T18:42:40Z)
• Agentic Rubrics as Contextual Verifiers for SWE Agents [8.469998524915818]
  We show that Agentic rubrics provide an efficient, scalable, and granular verification signal for SWE agents.<n>Results show that Agentic rubrics are consistent with ground-truth tests while also flagging issues that tests do not capture.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-07T18:38:23Z)
• VulAgent: Hypothesis-Validation based Multi-Agent Vulnerability Detection [55.957275374847484]
  VulAgent is a multi-agent vulnerability detection framework based on hypothesis validation.<n>It implements a semantics-sensitive, multi-view detection pipeline, each aligned to a specific analysis perspective.<n>On average, VulAgent improves overall accuracy by 6.6%, increases the correct identification rate of vulnerable--fixed code pairs by up to 450%, and reduces the false positive rate by about 36%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-15T02:25:38Z)
• Seamless Detection: Unifying Salient Object Detection and Camouflaged Object Detection [73.85890512959861]
  We propose a task-agnostic framework to unify Salient Object Detection (SOD) and Camouflaged Object Detection (COD)<n>We design a simple yet effective contextual decoder involving the interval-layer and global context, which achieves an inference speed of 67 fps.<n> Experiments on public SOD and COD datasets demonstrate the superiority of our proposed framework in both supervised and unsupervised settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-22T03:25:43Z)
• Ambiguity-Resistant Semi-Supervised Learning for Dense Object Detection [98.66771688028426]
  We propose a Ambiguity-Resistant Semi-supervised Learning (ARSL) for one-stage detectors. Joint-Confidence Estimation (JCE) is proposed to quantifies the classification and localization quality of pseudo labels. ARSL effectively mitigates the ambiguities and achieves state-of-the-art SSOD performance on MS COCO and PASCAL VOC.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-27T07:46:58Z)
• Delving into Probabilistic Uncertainty for Unsupervised Domain Adaptive Person Re-Identification [54.174146346387204]
  We propose an approach named probabilistic uncertainty guided progressive label refinery (P$2$LR) for domain adaptive person re-identification. A quantitative criterion is established to measure the uncertainty of pseudo labels and facilitate the network training. Our method outperforms the baseline by 6.5% mAP on the Duke2Market task, while surpassing the state-of-the-art method by 2.5% mAP on the Market2MSMT task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-28T07:40:12Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.