Users of language-based assistive agents often make ambiguous requests. In response, an assistant can either directly act on its interpretation of the request --- risking misalignment with the user --...
arXiv:2609.37588v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Users of language-based assistive agents often make ambiguous requests. In response, an assistant can either directly act on its interpretation of the...
arXiv:2606. 11349v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In hierarchical reasoning, failures often originate at intermediate decision points where the agent commits to a wrong branch without recognizing that it lacks critical information.
arXiv:2606. 29654v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent deliberation among LLMs can improve reasoning, but deployment requires deciding when the current answer is reliable enough to act on and when it should be escalated to human review.
arXiv:2608. 05519v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agent benchmarks usually measure task completion and treat resource use as an auxiliary statistic.
arXiv:2608. 13046v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Organizational decisions are co-created while evidence, constraints, and human priorities continue to evolve.
The paper introduces ProSE, a framework for AI assistants that generate proposals while considering users’ bounded rationality and evaluability constraints. It proposes a KL‑regularised bounded‑rational binary response model and a depth‑2 Bayes‑adaptive planner, “ProSE‑Plan,” which scores proposals by expected responses and resulting belief updates. Experiments on graph simulations show that “ProSE‑Plan” outperforms evaluability‑unaware and myopic baselines, especially when evaluation cost is high, and that informative probes are crucial for effective assistance.
Organizational decisions are co-created while evidence, constraints, and human priorities continue to evolve. In conventional transcript-based multi-agent systems, humans typically provide an initial problem, agents deliberate internally, and the system returns a final response.
arXiv:2606. 08696v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Counterfactual recourse aims to provide actionable feature changes that would alter an unfavorable decision made by a predictive model.
arXiv:2606. 31422v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Language agents acting over long horizons must maintain beliefs about tool states, object locations, graph edges, and subgoal dependencies.
The paper argues that evaluating agents as fixed models is insufficient, proposing instead to treat them as configurable systems. Using a new benchmark of four scientific tasks, the authors analyze how five configuration aspects—task information, reasoning, self‑verification, time budget, and backbone model—affect performance, noting that about 54% of outcome variance arises from run‑to‑run differences even with the same settings. The study finds that providing more task information has the strongest impact, while interactions among settings (e.g., extra time only helps with adequate information or model capability) and the choice of verification tools significantly shape agent behavior.
The paper introduces the concept of "empty commitments," promises made by AI agents that cannot be fulfilled due to the absence of necessary tools or runtime capabilities. It defines three failure types, proposes a detection checker, and evaluates it on 400 human-labeled examples and a benchmark of 293 follow‑up requests. The study shows that many open‑weight models frequently issue such empty commitments, and that simple interventions—informing the model of its runtime, adding a capability card, or running a checker loop—can significantly reduce these failures.