cs.AIApr 13, 2026

The A-R Behavioral Space: Execution-Level Profiling of Tool-Using Language Model Agents in Organizational Deployment

Authors: Shasha Yu, Fiona Carroll, Barry L. Bentley

Organizations: Cardiff School of Technologies, Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cardiff, Wales CF5 2YB, UK · School of Professional Studies, Clark University, Worcester, MA 01610 USA · Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, MA 02115 USA

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as tool-augmented agents capable of executing system-level operations. While existing benchmarks primarily assess textual alignment or task success, less attention has been paid to the structural relationship between linguistic signaling and executable behavior under varying autonomy scaffolds. This study introduces an execution-layer be-havioral measurement approach based on a two-dimensional A-R space defined by Action Rate (A) and Refusal Signal (R), with Divergence (D) capturing coor-dination between the two. Models are evaluated across four normative regimes (Control, Gray, Dilemma, and Malicious) and three autonomy configurations (di-rect execution, planning, and reflection). Rather than assigning aggregate safety scores, the method characterizes how execution and refusal redistribute across contextual framing and scaffold depth. Empirical results show that execution and refusal constitute separable behavioral dimensions whose joint distribution varies systematically across regimes and autonomy levels. Reflection-based scaffolding often shifts configurations toward higher refusal in risk-laden contexts, but redis-tribution patterns differ structurally across models. The A-R representation makes cross-sectional behavioral profiles, scaffold-induced transitions, and coordination variability directly observable. By foregrounding execution-layer characterization over scalar ranking, this work provides a deployment-oriented lens for analyzing and selecting tool-enabled LLM agents in organizational settings where execution privileges and risk tolerance vary.

Explore similar work

CardsList
  1. AgentBoundary: Counterfactual Evaluation of Safety in Tool-Using LLM Agents

    Sep 27, 2026Tianzhuo Yang, Zirui Mi, Yantao Huang +4LLM Agent EvaluationLLM Agents

  2. AURA-Eval: Evaluation Framework for Acting Under Risk Awareness in LLM Agent Trajectories

    Sep 6, 2026Ruoxi Shang, Christina-Maria Androna, Orfeas Menis Mastromichalakis +6LLM Agent SafetyAI Agent Safety Benchmarks

  3. Bridging Foundational and Agentic Capabilities of LLMs

    Oct 21, 2026Wei Guo, Yuanjian Xu, Jianing Hao +4LLM Agent EvaluationAI Agent Benchmarks