When Aggregate Alignment Misleads: Auditing Policy Repair Without Per-State Expert Actions — AI agent app

Peiying Zhu, Sidi Chang/When Aggregate Alignment Misleads: Auditing Policy Repair Without Per-State Expert ActionsUnknown

Agentic AI systems are increasingly used to edit, refine, and repair decision policies, but evaluating these edits is difficult when per-state expert action labels are unavailable. We study this problem in a hotel-pricing simulator where an agentic policy editor receives only region-level diagnostic feedback: summaries of how its price distribution differs from a benchmark policy across time, inventory, and market regions. The editor cannot observe benchmark actions, benchmark source code, reward numbers, or held-out outcomes, and may only propose constrained edits to a target-action table. On 5,000 held-out episodes, a multi-restart LLM editor reaches RevPAR 108.47 (95% CI 107.61 - 109.34), close to the benchmark policy's 108.75 (107.81 - 109.68), with paired gap (LLM minus benchmark) -0.276 and 95% CI [-0.692, 0.146]. A cheap diagnostic projection already recovers much of the revenue (107.90), so the LLM editor's distinctive gain is not raw revenue lift alone: it also reduces episode composition distance from 1.153 to 0.609. This is the strongest non-benchmark repair result. This profile is not explained by restart search alone: non-semantic proposers with up to 2,500 evaluations fall 8.77 - 14.57 RevPAR points short. Nor is it explained by plausible prompt format: a shuffled-diagnostic control breaks region-error correspondence and falls to RevPAR 94.30. The match is genuine but partial. A tree editor achieves stronger pooled alignment, 0.214 versus 0.266, and stronger reference-state D1, 0.328 versus 1.197, yet revenue falls to 98.91. These results show that agentic policy repair should be evaluated by whether diagnostic feedback becomes reliable closed-loop outcome, not by a single behavioral distance.

agent app

Stars0

Forks0

HF Downloads—30d

Last commit—

Refreshed1mo ago

Project healthUnknownNo activity data.

Production readinessResearch / EarlyBest for exploration and prototyping.

Risk notesUnknown licenseVerify license before production use.

AgentHub Score

55 / 100

Composite score from 6 signals. How we score →

Active project

55Score

Growth

40C

Activity

30C

Documentation

70C+

Maturity

45C

Community

42C

Production

58C

GitHub stars · 28 days observed0 not enough history

snapshots

Repository activity · 28 days observedReal snapshots from pushed_at

inactivepushed

2026-07-262026-08-24

Practical assessment

Should you use it?

✓ Best for

Research and experimentation
Prototype development
Learning agentic patterns

◎ Strengths

Active community
Open source
Well-documented API

✕ Not ideal for

Untested at scale without validation
Teams without AI/ML expertise

⚠ Watch-outs

Review changelog before updating
Verify license for commercial use

Technical details

What's inside

Language—

License—

Sourcearxiv

Open source✗ No

Commercial use—

Docs—

Demo—

PaperarXiv ↗

AgentHub Score

Score 55/100

Below average

Alternatives

OccuReward: LLM-Guided Occupant-Centric Reward Shaping for Demographic Equity in Grid-Interactive Buildings

0 · agent app

What is Missing from AI Post-Training AI: An Empirical Analysis

0 · agent app

Delegating or Doing? Understanding User Behavior in Hybrid Human-Agent Interfaces

0 · agent app

Unaccountable Delegation, Fading Skills: Mapping the Risks of Workplace AI Agents

0 · agent app

55 Compare all →

Recent activity

Latest commit ——

Indexed by AgentHub crawler1mo ago

Monitor for new releasesongoing