Charlie Masters

Charlie Masters, Ziyuan Liu, Stefano V. Albrecht

Reproducibility problems that have long affected machine learning and reinforcement learning are now surfacing in agent research: papers compare systems by reported scores while leaving the rollout records behind those scores difficult to inspect. For agentic tasks, this matters because the same behaviour can receive different reported scores when evaluations select different parts of a rollout or apply different reporting rules. In a structured audit of 50 popular training and evaluation repositories, we find that none report how many runs failed, errored, or were skipped alongside headline scores. We also document 37 cases where reporting rules can change task-success rates, cost/token accounting, or timing measurements for fixed evidence, sometimes dramatically. We treat rollout records, not reported scores, as the unit of reproducibility for agent research. We introduce rollout cards: publication bundles that preserve the rollout record and declare the views, reporting rules, and drops manifests behind reported scores. We validate rollout cards in two settings. First, four partial public releases in tool safety, multi-agent systems, theorem proving, and search let us compute analyses their original reports did not include. Second, re-grading preserved benchmark outputs across short-answer, code-generation, and tool-use tasks shows that changing only the reporting rule can change reported scores by 20.9 absolute percentage points and, in some cases, invert rankings of frontier models. We release a reference implementation integrated into Ergon, an open-source reinforcement learning gym, and publicly publish Ergon-produced rollout-card exports for benchmarks spanning tool use, software engineering, web interaction, multi-agent coordination, safety, and search to support future research.

Charlie Masters, Advaith Vellanki, Jiangbo Shangguan et al.

While agentic AI has advanced in automating individual tasks, managing complex multi-agent workflows remains a challenging problem. This paper presents a research vision for autonomous agentic systems that orchestrate collaboration within dynamic human-AI teams. We propose the Autonomous Manager Agent as a core challenge: an agent that decomposes complex goals into task graphs, allocates tasks to human and AI workers, monitors progress, adapts to changing conditions, and maintains transparent stakeholder communication. We formalize workflow management as a Partially Observable Stochastic Game and identify four foundational challenges: (1) compositional reasoning for hierarchical decomposition, (2) multi-objective optimization under shifting preferences, (3) coordination and planning in ad hoc teams, and (4) governance and compliance by design. To advance this agenda, we release MA-Gym, an open-source simulation and evaluation framework for multi-agent workflow orchestration. Evaluating GPT-5-based Manager Agents across 20 workflows, we find they struggle to jointly optimize for goal completion, constraint adherence, and workflow runtime - underscoring workflow management as a difficult open problem. We conclude with organizational and ethical implications of autonomous management systems.

Charlie Masters, Marta Grześkiewicz, Stefano V. Albrecht

As agents based on large language models are increasingly deployed to long-horizon tasks, maintaining their alignment with stakeholder preferences becomes critical. Effective alignment in such settings requires reward models that are interpretable so that stakeholders can understand and audit model objectives. Moreover, reward models must be capable of steering agents at interaction time, allowing preference shifts to be incorporated without retraining. We introduce ARCANE, a framework that frames alignment as a multi-agent collaboration problem that dynamically represents stakeholder preferences as natural-language rubrics: weighted sets of verifiable criteria that can be generated on-the-fly from task context. Inspired by utility theory, we formulate rubric learning as a reconstruction problem and apply a regularized Group-Sequence Policy Optimization (GSPO) procedure that balances interpretability, faithfulness, and computational efficiency. Using a corpus of 219 labeled rubrics derived from the GDPVal benchmark, we evaluate ARCANE on challenging tasks requiring multi-step reasoning and tool use. The learned rubrics produce compact, legible evaluations and enable configurable trade-offs (e.g., correctness vs. conciseness) without retraining. Our results show that rubric-based reward models offer a promising path toward interpretable, test-time adaptive alignment for complex, long-horizon AI systems.