sbus-benchmarks / README.md
sajjadanwar0's picture
Initial release: LHP benchmarks, PH-3 human annotations, annotation tool
89880f9 verified
---
license: cc-by-4.0
language:
- en
task_categories:
- text-classification
tags:
- multi-agent
- concurrency
- inter-annotator-agreement
- human-evaluation
- long-horizon-planning
- benchmark
- llm-agents
size_categories:
- n<1K
pretty_name: S-Bus Benchmarks and PH-3 Human Annotations
arxiv: 2605.17076
configs:
- config_name: long_horizon_tasks
data_files:
- split: lhp_15
path: data/long_horizon_tasks/long_horizon_tasks.json
- split: multidomain_30
path: data/long_horizon_tasks/tasks_30_multidomain.json
- config_name: ph3_human_annotations
data_files:
- split: annotator_1
path: data/ph3_human_annotations/annotator_1.csv
- split: annotator_2
path: data/ph3_human_annotations/annotator_2.csv
---
# S-Bus: Long-Horizon Planning Benchmarks and PH-3 Human Annotations
Companion datasets for the paper *Reliable Autonomous Orchestration: A
Rust-Based Transactional Middleware for Mitigating Semantic
Synchronization Overhead in Multi-Agent Systems* (Khan, 2026).
- arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.17076
- Code (S-Bus server): https://github.com/sajjadanwar0/sbus
- Code (experiments): https://github.com/sajjadanwar0/sbus-experiments
## Configs
### `long_horizon_tasks`
Long-horizon planning benchmarks used to evaluate S-Bus against
LangGraph, CrewAI, and AutoGen.
| Split | Tasks | Step range | Description |
| --- | ---: | --- | --- |
| `lhp_15` | 15 | 20-40 | Original LHP benchmark across 7 domains: software architecture, security and compliance, data and ML pipelines, codebase refactoring, system design, research synthesis, product and API design. |
| `multidomain_30` | 30 | varies | Extended 30-task multi-domain set. |
```python
from datasets import load_dataset
ds = load_dataset("sajjadanwar0/sbus-benchmarks", "long_horizon_tasks", split="lhp_15")
```
### `ph3_human_annotations`
Two independent human annotators labeled 400 (session, candidate-shard)
pairs sampled from S-Bus evaluation runs. For each pair the annotator
judged whether the agent's action genuinely used the candidate shard,
given what the agent itself claimed in its self-report.
The source 400 tasks are available as `source_tasks.json` in the
repository file tree, along with the annotation web tool
(`annotation_tool/annotator.html`) and protocol (`annotation_tool/GUIDE.md`)
so the study can be reproduced or extended by independent annotators.
#### Schema
| Column | Type | Description |
| --- | --- | --- |
| `row_idx` | int | Zero-indexed row identifier. Shared across both rater files. |
| `candidate_shard` | str | The S-Bus shard whose use is being judged (e.g., `migration_plan`, `models_state`, `view_logic`, `permission_check`, `action_registry`). |
| `human_label` | str | One of `yes`, `no`, `unclear`. The rater's judgment of whether the shard was genuinely used. |
| `agent_said_used_it` | str | `yes` or `no` — what the agent itself claimed in its output. The cue the rater scored against. |
#### Inter-rater agreement
Cohen's κ is reported under two regimes because 307 of 400 rows have at
least one `unclear` label, making a 3-class report and a 2-class
(committed) report tell different stories.
| Regime | n | Cohen's κ | Landis & Koch | Raw agreement |
| --- | ---: | ---: | --- | ---: |
| Strict (yes/no only) | 93 | 0.931 | almost perfect | 96.8% |
| Lenient (3-class with `unclear`) | 400 | 0.695 | substantial | — |
**Strict confusion matrix:**
| | rater 2: yes | rater 2: no |
| --- | ---: | ---: |
| rater 1: yes | 33 | 0 |
| rater 1: no | 3 | 57 |
**Interpretation.** When raters commit to a definite yes/no, they
near-perfectly agree (κ=0.931). The substantial volume of `unclear`
labels — 77% of rows had at least one — is itself the headline finding:
attributing shard usage from agent traces is genuinely ambiguous even
for trained humans. This motivates not relying on agent self-report and
is the empirical case for the SCR detection mechanism in S-Bus.
#### Reproducing these figures
The scoring script is bundled in the repository under `scripts/`:
```bash
python3 scripts/score_annotations.py \
data/ph3_human_annotations/annotator_1.csv \
data/ph3_human_annotations/annotator_2.csv
```
Or using `datasets` directly:
```python
import pandas as pd
from datasets import load_dataset
from sklearn.metrics import cohen_kappa_score
ds = load_dataset("sajjadanwar0/sbus-benchmarks", "ph3_human_annotations")
a1 = ds["annotator_1"].to_pandas()
a2 = ds["annotator_2"].to_pandas()
m = a1.merge(a2, on=["row_idx", "candidate_shard"], suffixes=("_r1", "_r2"))
# Lenient (3-class with unclear)
print("Lenient kappa:", cohen_kappa_score(m["human_label_r1"], m["human_label_r2"]))
# Strict (yes/no committed only)
strict = m[m["human_label_r1"].isin(["yes", "no"]) &
m["human_label_r2"].isin(["yes", "no"])]
print("Strict kappa: ", cohen_kappa_score(strict["human_label_r1"], strict["human_label_r2"]))
```
#### Agent self-report validity
Comparing each annotator's labels against `agent_said_used_it` shows
the agents systematically over-claim shard usage:
| Annotator | n | Precision | Recall | Accuracy |
| --- | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: |
| Rater 1 | 96 | 0.681 | 0.941 | 0.823 |
| Rater 2 | 144 | 0.514 | 0.725 | 0.660 |
When an agent claims to have used a shard, 32-49% of those claims are
disputed by the human raters (precision 0.51-0.68). When raters mark a
shard as truly used, agents catch it 73-94% of the time. This precision
gap is the empirical motivation for transactional shard tracking rather
than trusting agent self-report.
## Citation
```bibtex
@article{khan2026sbus,
title = {Reliable Autonomous Orchestration: A Rust-Based Transactional
Middleware for Mitigating Semantic Synchronization Overhead
in Multi-Agent Systems},
author = {Khan, Sajjad},
journal = {arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.17076},
year = {2026}
}
```
## License
CC-BY-4.0 for all data, scripts, and annotation materials in this repository.
## Repository structure
```
sbus-benchmarks/
├── README.md # this file
├── LICENSE # CC-BY-4.0
├── data/
│ ├── long_horizon_tasks/
│ │ ├── long_horizon_tasks.json
│ │ └── tasks_30_multidomain.json
│ └── ph3_human_annotations/
│ ├── annotator_1.csv # rater 1 labels (400 rows)
│ ├── annotator_2.csv # rater 2 labels (400 rows)
│ └── source_tasks.json # the 400 (session, shard) pairs annotated
├── annotation_tool/
│ ├── annotator.html # browser-based annotation UI
│ └── GUIDE.md # annotation protocol and rubric
└── scripts/
└── score_annotations.py # Cohen's kappa + self-report stats
```
## Contact
Sajjad Khan — https://github.com/sajjadanwar0