arXiv AI
4d ago

Foundations of Proactive Agents: Principles, Technical Layers, and Proactivity-Gym

The paper introduces a framework for designing proactive large‑language‑model agents, centered on three joint principles—Task Capability, Temporal Allocation, and Trust—alongside a five‑dimensional design space. It proposes PROACTIVITY‑GYM, a simulation testbed for evaluating proactive assistance across multi‑day scenarios, and presents empirical findings that highlight performance gaps and the importance of aligning interventions with user trust. Human studies show that misaligned interventions can sharply reduce trust, even when outcomes are correct, underscoring the need for careful joint optimization of the 3T principles.

By Jio Oh, Seunghyun Do, Young-Jun Lee, Steven Euijong Whang, Dongyeop Kang
arXiv AI
Sep 4

Proactive Service Agents: A Unified Decision Framework, Methods, and Evaluation

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.

By Yan Tang, Tingyu Cao, Yuanbo Tang, Huaze Tang, Keer Hu
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 1

S3Gym: Can LLMs Turn Self-Testing and Self-Judging into Self-Improvement?

S3Gym is an interactive benchmark designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) on their ability to self-improve through self-testing, self-judging, and self-improvement. It separates permissive exploration from strict held-out evaluation across seven text-based games with executable environment verifiers. Experiments show that self-improvement varies by task, with different experience incorporation pathways (direct history, summary memory, or parameter training) yielding mixed results and highlighting the need for agents to transform feedback into executable, transferable policies.

By Jiajun Shi, Siyuan Tao, Yuhao Wu, Zexuan Wang, Jingyuan Zhang, Jiaheng Liu, Xinping Lei, Xinrong Zhang, Siyuan Fang, Zhewen Tan, Tianle Cai, Junhao Fang, Jiameng Huang, Yueyang Wang, Jinkai Liu, Yuxuan Zhang, Jian Yang, Zhoujun Li, Shen Yan, Wenhao Huang, Ge Zhang
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 14

GAUGE: When Not to Trust LLM-as-a-Judge in User-Simulated Evaluation of Task-Oriented Agents

GAUGE is a new offline protocol that evaluates whether the common practice of using an LLM-as-a-judge to rank task‑oriented agents actually aligns with a verifiable reward. Across 25 agents from six providers on two benchmarks, GAUGE finds that user satisfaction scores are largely uncorrelated with task success, and that the judge’s ranking loses precision when agents are closely matched in performance. The study highlights a gap between ranking validity and construct validity in current evaluation practices.

By Umesh Bodhwani, Thanh Tran, Kai Wei