The paper presents a unified framework for proactive service agents, defining proactivity as an agent’s ability to infer service opportunities from incomplete signals and decide whether to remain silent, ask, assist, or act. It models this as a partially observable sequential decision process constrained by authorization and risk, integrating timing, content, and delivery into a single structured action. The authors categorize existing methods along a decision pipeline—state and need estimation, intervention gating, action construction, and feedback adaptation—and propose standardized metrics for evaluating triggering, timing, calibration, user burden, safety, and policy value across diverse interaction modalities.
arXiv:2608. 14132v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Mobile GUI Agents powered by multimodal large language models (MLLMs) show promise in human-computer intelligence.
arXiv:2609.07741v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Persistent AI assistants are intended to extend human attention, memory, and coordination across changing digital and physical environments. To be trul...
arXiv:2606. 02965v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Benchmarks for autonomous agents measure whether agents complete tasks, yet this framing is systematically blind to whether an agent should have proceeded at all.
The paper investigates how agentic systems decide between acting and abstaining, focusing on the fidelity of their reasoning explanations. Using Qwen3‑8B in a multi‑party conversation setting, the authors compare direct decision policies, reasoning policies, supervised fine‑tuning, and reinforcement learning, finding a trade‑off: strong direct policies yield higher performance but no traceable reasoning, while reasoning policies provide an audit trail at the cost of lower recall. The study also uncovers that exposing reasoning can alter the agent’s policy and that common faithfulness metrics may overstate the alignment between reasoning and decisions.
arXiv:2607. 17701v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Proactive agents are expected to anticipate user needs and provide autonomous assistance by perceiving environmental context without explicit instructions.
arXiv:2606. 02965v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As large language models gain tool access and are deployed as autonomous agents capable of editing records, executing transactions, and modifying infrastructure, we still evaluate them based on the sole metric of task completion.
Consilience is an inference‑time orchestration framework that steers and certifies communication among multi‑agent large language models in hidden‑profile settings. It summarizes each discussion turn with a compact state of uncertainty, disagreement, evidence gain, redundancy, and premature consensus, then selects a communication intervention (challenge, clarify, seek evidence, or route) and speaker. A round‑wise conformal calibration procedure guarantees that the controller’s proposed action has bounded one‑step regret with high probability, and an acceptance mechanism enforces this guarantee for the executed action. Experiments on HiddenBench‑style tasks show that Consilience improves decision accuracy and communication efficiency over fixed and unstructured protocols, sometimes outperforming a full‑information baseline.
arXiv:2607. 11523v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When should an intelligent assistant speak up without being asked?
arXiv:2608.30685v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed in user-facing services that require iterative tool use under dynamic business conditions....
arXiv:2607. 24770v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Procedural tasks such as furniture assembly and home repair impose substantial cognitive demands because users must interpret instructions, track task progress, reason about spatial state, and recover from errors while performing physical actions.
arXiv:2606. 14314v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM agents have rapidly evolved into autonomous systems, yet a persistent information gap remains between users and agents: communication is costly, while users' identical preferences further limit information exchange.
arXiv:2602. 11351v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Proactive large language model (LLM) agents aim to actively plan, query, and interact over multiple turns, enabling efficient task completion beyond passive instruction following and making them essential for real-world, user-centric applications.