arXiv AI By Yan Tang, Tingyu Cao, Yuanbo Tang, Huaze Tang, Keer Hu

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

Read the original on arXiv AI →

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.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Aug 24

Why2Speak: Faithful Reasoning for Abstaining Action Policies

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.

By Shreya Mendi, Brinnae Bent
arXiv AI
Sep 30

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