Priyam Sahoo

Priyam Sahoo, Gaurav Mittal, Xiaomin Li et al.

Evaluation of software engineering (SWE) agents is dominated by a binary signal: whether the final patch passes the tests. This outcome-only view treats a principled solution and a chaotic trial-and-error process as equivalent. We show that this equivalence is empirically false. We evaluate 2,614 OpenHands trajectories from eight model backends on 60 SWE-bench Verified tasks. Of these, 47 have enough passing trajectories to construct task-level process references, yielding a 1,815-trajectory evaluation subset. Among passing trajectories in this subset, 10.7% exhibit behavior we call a Lucky Pass: regression cycles, blind retries, missing verification, or temporally disordered exploration, implementation, and verification. We introduce AgentLens, a framework for process-level assessment of SWE-agent trajectories, and release AgentLens-Bench, a dataset of 1,815 trajectories annotated with quality scores, waste signals, divergence points, and 47 task-level Prefix Tree Acceptor (PTA) references. AgentLens builds PTA references by merging multiple passing solutions for the same task, and uses a context-sensitive intent labeler to assign actions to Exploration, Implementation, Verification, or Orchestration based on trajectory history rather than tool identity alone. On AgentLens-Bench, the quality score separates passing trajectories into Lucky, Solid, and Ideal tiers and further decomposes Lucky Passes into five recurring mechanisms. Across the eight model backends, Lucky rates range from 0.5% to 23.2%, and some models move by as many as five rank positions when ranked by quality score instead of pass rate. We release the anonymized project repository, including the AgentLens-Bench dataset and AgentLens SDK, at https://github.com/microsoft/code-agent-state-trajectories/.

Parisa Rabbani, Priyam Sahoo, Ruben Mathew et al.

LLMs are increasingly used as third-party judges, yet their reliability when evaluating speakers in dialogue remains poorly understood. We show that LLMs judge identical claims differently depending on framing: the same content elicits different verdicts when presented as a statement to verify ("Is this statement correct?") versus attributed to a speaker ("Is this speaker correct?"). We call this dialogic deference and introduce DialDefer, a framework for detecting and mitigating these framing-induced judgment shifts. Our Dialogic Deference Score (DDS) captures directional shifts that aggregate accuracy obscures. Across nine domains, 3k+ instances, and four models, conversational framing induces large shifts (|DDS| up to 87pp, p < .0001) while accuracy remains stable (<2pp), with effects amplifying 2-4x on naturalistic Reddit conversations. Models can shift toward agreement (deference) or disagreement (skepticism) depending on domain -- the same model ranges from DDS = -53 on graduate-level science to +58 on social judgment. Ablations reveal that human-vs-LLM attribution drives the largest shifts (17.7pp swing), suggesting models treat disagreement with humans as more costly than with AI. Mitigation attempts reduce deference but can over-correct into skepticism, framing this as a calibration problem beyond accuracy optimization.

Priyam Sahoo, Saurabh Pujar, Ganesh Nalawade et al. · ibm-research

The availability of Large Language Models (LLMs) which can generate code, has made it possible to create tools that improve developer productivity. Integrated development environments or IDEs which developers use to write software are often used as an interface to interact with LLMs. Although many such tools have been released, almost all of them focus on general-purpose programming languages. Domain-specific languages, such as those crucial for Information Technology (IT) automation, have not received much attention. Ansible is one such YAML-based IT automation-specific language. Ansible Lightspeed is an LLM-based service designed explicitly to generate Ansible YAML, given natural language prompt. In this paper, we present the design and implementation of the Ansible Lightspeed service. We then evaluate its utility to developers using diverse indicators, including extended utilization, analysis of user edited suggestions, as well as user sentiments analysis. The evaluation is based on data collected for 10,696 real users including 3,910 returning users. The code for Ansible Lightspeed service and the analysis framework is made available for others to use. To our knowledge, our study is the first to involve thousands of users of code assistants for domain-specific languages. We are also the first code completion tool to present N-Day user retention figures, which is 13.66% on Day 30. We propose an improved version of user acceptance rate, called Strong Acceptance rate, where a suggestion is considered accepted only if less than 50% of it is edited and these edits do not change critical parts of the suggestion. By focusing on Ansible, Lightspeed is able to achieve a strong acceptance rate of 49.08% for multi-line Ansible task suggestions. With our findings we provide insights into the effectiveness of small, dedicated models in a domain-specific context.