Good Papers

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

Proactive LLM agents need joint optimization of task capability, temporal compute allocation, and user trust, with Proactivity-Gym exposing evaluation gaps and human preference for unobtrusive assistance.

Jio Oh, Seunghyun Do, Youngjun Lee, Steven Euijong Whang, Dongyeop Kang

Published Sep 29, 2026▲ 22 on Hugging FacearXiv ↗

88%
OverallMust read
?
OverallMust readVote to see the scoreThe exact score shows once you've voted, so every vote is your own call. The first half of each home page shelf shows its scores.
Readers
–

Only vote on papers you've read. Sign in with GitHub to vote.

AI panel15/20reviewers recommend it
lenient 5/5
medium 8/10
strict 2/5
AI panel?Vote to see what the 20 AI reviewers said
Panel consensus
The 3T framework is the first to tie compute timing to trust erosion, and its human study shows users prefer sleep-time help over interruption, though simulated personas and small samples leave real trust curves and causal…

Abstract

Proactive LLM agents can turn idle compute into useful support before users ask. Yet even correct work can misread user context, impose review costs, or undermine trust. This work proposes foundations for designing, realizing, and evaluating proactive LLM agents around three joint principles (3T): Task Capability, anticipating relevant needs and correctly performing useful work; Temporal Allocation, allocating compute according to resource availability and when results are needed; and Trust, sustaining users' confidence and appropriate reliance on the agent. We connect these objectives to a design space organized around five dimensions: task scope, anticipation horizon, activation trigger, processing timing, and intervention depth, and specify the situation and system modeling needed to support its choices, including user and environment representations, backbone LLMs, and agent harnesses. Lastly, we propose PROACTIVITY-GYM, a simulation-based evaluation testbed including multi-day scenarios, stateful environments, and persona-conditioned simulated users that can evaluate the consequences of proactive assistance across interactions. Evaluations across 23 model-harness configurations uncover substantial performance gaps across 3T and reveal that LLM judges often conflate task capability and trust. A human study with 30 participants demonstrates the importance of the joint 3T optimization: participants show sharp trust declines after intervention misalignment despite correct outcomes, and prefer sleep-time assistance, even when imperfect, to preserve ongoing focus. Together, these findings support designing and evaluating proactive agents through the joint consideration of useful work, compute allocation, and evolving user trust.