Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces ConflictGuide, a novel AutoResearch framework that explicitly addresses competing behaviors in iterative model editing by incorporating feedback on these tensions alongside scalar task performance. By identifying and measuring conflicting behaviors, ConflictGuide guides the search process to prioritize edits that alleviate these trade-offs, leading to improved overall model performance. Experiments demonstrate that ConflictGuide significantly reduces task and conflict-related errors across diverse model families compared to scalar-only AutoResearch.
AutoResearch systems can achieve up to 28% fewer errors by making competing behaviors visible and actively steering edits to resolve their inherent conflicts.
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.