Daily Papers

Large Language Models (LLMs)-based agents have made impressive progress in reasoning and tool use, enabling them to solve complex tasks. However, their ability to proactively collaborate with users, especially when goals are vague, evolving, or indirectly expressed, remains underexplored. To address this gap, we introduce UserBench, a user-centric benchmark designed to evaluate agents in multi-turn, preference-driven interactions. UserBench features simulated users who start with underspecified goals and reveal preferences incrementally, requiring agents to proactively clarify intent and make grounded decisions with tools. Our evaluation of leading open- and closed-source LLMs reveals a significant disconnect between task completion and user alignment. For instance, models provide answers that fully align with all user intents only 20% of the time on average, and even the most advanced models uncover fewer than 30% of all user preferences through active interaction. These results highlight the challenges of building agents that are not just capable task executors, but true collaborative partners. UserBench offers an interactive environment to measure and advance this critical capability.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is taking on increasingly autonomous roles, e.g., browsing the web as a research assistant and managing money. But specifying goals and restrictions for AI behavior is difficult. Similar to how parties to a legal contract cannot foresee every potential "if-then" contingency of their future relationship, we cannot specify desired AI behavior for all circumstances. Legal standards facilitate robust communication of inherently vague and underspecified goals. Instructions (in the case of language models, "prompts") that employ legal standards will allow AI agents to develop shared understandings of the spirit of a directive that generalize expectations regarding acceptable actions to take in unspecified states of the world. Standards have built-in context that is lacking from other goal specification languages, such as plain language and programming languages. Through an empirical study on thousands of evaluation labels we constructed from U.S. court opinions, we demonstrate that large language models (LLMs) are beginning to exhibit an "understanding" of one of the most relevant legal standards for AI agents: fiduciary obligations. Performance comparisons across models suggest that, as LLMs continue to exhibit improved core capabilities, their legal standards understanding will also continue to improve. OpenAI's latest LLM has 78% accuracy on our data, their previous release has 73% accuracy, and a model from their 2020 GPT-3 paper has 27% accuracy (worse than random). Our research is an initial step toward a framework for evaluating AI understanding of legal standards more broadly, and for conducting reinforcement learning with legal feedback (RLLF).

AI agents that interact with their environments through tools enable powerful applications, but in high-stakes business settings, unintended actions can cause unacceptable harm, such as privacy breaches and financial loss. Existing mitigations, such as training-based methods and neural guardrails, improve agent reliability but cannot provide guarantees. We study symbolic guardrails as a practical path toward strong safety and security guarantees for AI agents. Our three-part study includes a systematic review of 80 state-of-the-art agent safety and security benchmarks to identify the policies they evaluate, an analysis of which policy requirements can be guaranteed by symbolic guardrails, and an evaluation of how symbolic guardrails affect safety, security, and agent success on τ^2-Bench, CAR-bench, and MedAgentBench. We find that 85\% of benchmarks lack concrete policies, relying instead on underspecified high-level goals or common sense. Among the specified policies, 74\% of policy requirements can be enforced by symbolic guardrails, often using simple, low-cost mechanisms. These guardrails improve safety and security without sacrificing agent utility. Overall, our results suggest that symbolic guardrails are a practical and effective way to guarantee some safety and security requirements, especially for domain-specific AI agents. We release all codes and artifacts at https://github.com/hyn0027/agent-symbolic-guardrails.

Deep research agents powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) can perform multi-step reasoning, web exploration, and long-form report generation. However, most existing systems operate in an autonomous manner, assuming fully specified user intent and evaluating only final outputs. In practice, research goals are often underspecified and evolve during exploration, making sustained interaction essential for robust alignment. Despite its importance, interaction remains largely invisible to existing deep research benchmarks, which neither model dynamic user feedback nor quantify its costs. We introduce IDRBench, the first benchmark for systematically evaluating interactive deep research. IDRBench combines a modular multi-agent research framework with on-demand interaction, a scalable reference-grounded user simulator, and an interaction-aware evaluation suite that jointly measures interaction benefits (quality and alignment) and costs (turns and tokens). Experiments across seven state-of-the-art LLMs show that interaction consistently improves research quality and robustness, often outweighing differences in model capacity, while revealing substantial trade-offs in interaction efficiency.

Clawdbot is a self-hosted, tool-using personal AI agent with a broad action space spanning local execution and web-mediated workflows, which raises heightened safety and security concerns under ambiguity and adversarial steering. We present a trajectory-centric evaluation of Clawdbot across six risk dimensions. Our test suite samples and lightly adapts scenarios from prior agent-safety benchmarks (including ATBench and LPS-Bench) and supplements them with hand-designed cases tailored to Clawdbot's tool surface. We log complete interaction trajectories (messages, actions, tool-call arguments/outputs) and assess safety using both an automated trajectory judge (AgentDoG-Qwen3-4B) and human review. Across 34 canonical cases, we find a non-uniform safety profile: performance is generally consistent on reliability-focused tasks, while most failures arise under underspecified intent, open-ended goals, or benign-seeming jailbreak prompts, where minor misinterpretations can escalate into higher-impact tool actions. We supplemented the overall results with representative case studies and summarized the commonalities of these cases, analyzing the security vulnerabilities and typical failure modes that Clawdbot is prone to trigger in practice.

Long-horizon workflow agents that operate effectively over extended periods are essential for truly autonomous systems. Their reliable execution critically depends on the ability to reason through ambiguous situations in which clarification seeking is necessary to ensure correct task execution. However, progress is limited by the lack of scalable, task-agnostic frameworks for systematically curating and measuring the impact of ambiguity across custom workflows. We address this gap by introducing LHAW (Long-Horizon Augmented Workflows), a modular, dataset-agnostic synthetic pipeline that transforms any well-specified task into controllable underspecified variants by systematically removing information across four dimensions - Goals, Constraints, Inputs, and Context - at configurable severity levels. Unlike approaches that rely on LLM predictions of ambiguity, LHAW validates variants through empirical agent trials, classifying them as outcome-critical, divergent, or benign based on observed terminal state divergence. We release 285 task variants from TheAgentCompany, SWE-Bench Pro and MCP-Atlas according to our taxonomy alongside formal analysis measuring how current agents detect, reason about, and resolve underspecification across ambiguous settings. LHAW provides the first systematic framework for cost-sensitive evaluation of agent clarification behavior in long-horizon settings, enabling development of reliable autonomous systems.

Recent large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance on a variety of natural language processing (NLP) tasks, leading to intense excitement about their applicability across various domains. Unfortunately, recent work has also shown that LLMs are unable to perform accurate reasoning nor solve planning problems, which may limit their usefulness for robotics-related tasks. In this work, our central question is whether LLMs are able to translate goals specified in natural language to a structured planning language. If so, LLM can act as a natural interface between the planner and human users; the translated goal can be handed to domain-independent AI planners that are very effective at planning. Our empirical results on GPT 3.5 variants show that LLMs are much better suited towards translation rather than planning. We find that LLMs are able to leverage commonsense knowledge and reasoning to furnish missing details from under-specified goals (as is often the case in natural language). However, our experiments also reveal that LLMs can fail to generate goals in tasks that involve numerical or physical (e.g., spatial) reasoning, and that LLMs are sensitive to the prompts used. As such, these models are promising for translation to structured planning languages, but care should be taken in their use.

AI agents are increasingly being deployed to automate tasks, often based on underspecified user instructions. Making unwarranted assumptions to compensate for the missing information and failing to ask clarifying questions can lead to suboptimal outcomes, safety risks due to tool misuse, and wasted computational resources. In this work, we study the ability of LLM agents to handle underspecified instructions in interactive code generation settings by evaluating proprietary and open-weight models on their performance across three key steps: (a) detecting underspecificity, (b) asking targeted clarification questions, and (c) leveraging the interaction to improve performance in underspecified scenarios. We introduce Ambig-SWE, an underspecified variant of SWE-Bench Verified, specifically designed to evaluate agent behavior under ambiguity and interaction. Our findings reveal that models struggle to distinguish between well-specified and underspecified instructions. However, when models interact for underspecified inputs, they effectively obtain vital information from the user leading to significant improvements in performance, up to 74% over the non-interactive settings, underscoring the value of effective interaction. Our study highlights critical gaps in how current state-of-the-art models handle missing information in complex software engineering tasks and structures the evaluation into distinct steps to enable targeted improvements.

LLM coding agents are increasingly deployed to act autonomously on real production infrastructure. They execute shell commands, modify repositories, and call operational APIs. However, completing a task is not sufficient for safety. A wrong action can cause severe consequences. Existing agent benchmarks largely emphasize task completion, leaving open how agents behave under benign but underspecified instructions. We present UnderSpecBench, a benchmark for measuring action-boundary violations in coding agents (i.e., Claude Code, Codex, and OpenCode) on DevOps tasks. UnderSpecBench includes 69 task families grounded in documented incidents, CVEs, or tool behavior and organized across four DevOps capability domains and nine operational control surfaces. To isolate underspecification from task difficulty, each task keeps the same environment and ground-truth safe action while varying the instruction along three axes: intent clarity, target certainty, and blast radius. The resulting 2,208 prompt variants are evaluated with deterministic, side-effect-based oracles that separate Safe Success, Wrong Target, and OverScope outcomes; non-action runs are further classified as clarification, refusal, or deferment. Across five agent x model configurations using OpenCode, Claude Code, and Codex, the evaluation results show that underspecification does not mainly make agents fail; it makes them guess. 55.8-67.8% of runs violate at least one boundary. Target underspecification sharply degrades action quality, while blast-radius cues barely reduce action propensity. These findings show that completion-centric evaluation can overstate safe autonomy and motivate mitigations at the model, harness, and system layer.

ML models often exhibit unexpectedly poor behavior when they are deployed in real-world domains. We identify underspecification as a key reason for these failures. An ML pipeline is underspecified when it can return many predictors with equivalently strong held-out performance in the training domain. Underspecification is common in modern ML pipelines, such as those based on deep learning. Predictors returned by underspecified pipelines are often treated as equivalent based on their training domain performance, but we show here that such predictors can behave very differently in deployment domains. This ambiguity can lead to instability and poor model behavior in practice, and is a distinct failure mode from previously identified issues arising from structural mismatch between training and deployment domains. We show that this problem appears in a wide variety of practical ML pipelines, using examples from computer vision, medical imaging, natural language processing, clinical risk prediction based on electronic health records, and medical genomics. Our results show the need to explicitly account for underspecification in modeling pipelines that are intended for real-world deployment in any domain.