Auditing and Controlling AI Agent Actions in Spreadsheets

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.20070v1
• Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2026 00:32:35 GMT
• Title: Auditing and Controlling AI Agent Actions in Spreadsheets
• Abstract summary: AI agents can perform sophisticated, multi-step knowledge work autonomously from start to finish.<n>By the time users receive the output, all underlying decisions have already been made without their involvement.<n>We introduce Pista, a spreadsheet AI agent that decomposes execution into auditable, controllable actions.
• Score: 9.249091427192786
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Advances in AI agent capabilities have outpaced users' ability to meaningfully oversee their execution. AI agents can perform sophisticated, multi-step knowledge work autonomously from start to finish, yet this process remains effectively inaccessible during execution, often buried within large volumes of intermediate reasoning and outputs: by the time users receive the output, all underlying decisions have already been made without their involvement. This lack of transparency leaves users unable to examine the agent's assumptions, identify errors before they propagate, or redirect execution when it deviates from their intent. The stakes are particularly high in spreadsheet environments, where process and artifact are inseparable. Each decision the agent makes is recorded directly in cells that belong to and reflect on the user. We introduce Pista, a spreadsheet AI agent that decomposes execution into auditable, controllable actions, providing users with visibility into the agent's decision-making process and the capacity to intervene at each step. A formative study (N = 8) and a within-subjects summative evaluation (N = 16) comparing Pista to a baseline agent demonstrated that active participation in execution influenced not only task outcomes but also users' comprehension of the task, their perception of the agent, and their sense of role within the workflow. Users identified their own intent reflected in the agent's actions, detected errors that post-hoc review would have failed to surface, and reported a sense of co-ownership over the resulting output. These findings indicate that meaningful human oversight of AI agents in knowledge work requires not improved post-hoc review mechanisms, but active participation in decisions as they are made.

Related papers

• From Profiling to Synthesis: Benchmarking Implicit Behavioral Alignment in Personalized LLM Agents [56.187590188698955]
  Large Language Models have enabled increasingly capable autonomous agents, yet personalization remains critical for making such agents practically useful.<n>Recent benchmarks have begun evaluating personalization in agents, but they largely rely on static preference snapshots, fixed interaction logs, or question answering over predefined user profiles.<n>We introduce IBA-Bench, a benchmark for implicit behavioral alignment constructed from longitudinal interaction histories.<n>We propose IBA-Agent, an agent framework that reconciles conflicting priorities through broad retrieval and trajectory-level alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-03T12:52:04Z)
• Stop Shipping AI Agents on Faith: Capability Is Not Production Readiness [0.0]
  This paper introduces the ProofAgent Index (PAI), a governance readiness index for AI agents.<n>PAI combines four dimensions of deployment evidence: Evaluation, Context, Compliance, and Governance.<n>It is implemented inside ProofAgent Harness, an open source infrastructure for auditable AI agent evaluation and governance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-30T04:44:47Z)
• Governed Individuation: Cryptographically Decoupling an Agent's Learning from Its Authority [7.392721604463545]
  We show that confinement can be guaranteed as an invariant of the agent's execution architecture.<n>We prove that no amount of learning, skill acquisition, or self-induced governance abstraction can widen the agent's permitted authority.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-06T02:42:06Z)
• Assistant or Actor? Student Trust, Control, and Delegation Regret When Using a General-Purpose AI Agent [10.633573668629486]
  We show that users face a problem when they decide what to delegate to a system whose action space they cannot fully anticipate.<n>We call the resulting dissatisfaction delegation regret, a pattern in which users regret not that the agent erred, but that it acted beyond what they would have authorized.<n>We discuss implications for agent designs that expose action boundaries, support per-task autonomy policies, and separate advisory output from agentic execution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-14T21:42:56Z)
• Agent Mentor: Framing Agent Knowledge through Semantic Trajectory Analysis [4.365760422569902]
  We introduce an analytics pipeline implemented as part of the Agent Mentor open-source library.<n>It monitors and incrementally adapts the system prompts defining another agent's behavior.<n>The pipeline improves performance by systematically injecting corrective instructions into the agent's knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-12T08:02:54Z)
• Talk, Evaluate, Diagnose: User-aware Agent Evaluation with Automated Error Analysis [3.3237915628874632]
  We argue that effective agent evaluation goes beyond correctness alone, incorporating conversation quality, efficiency and systematic diagnosis of agent errors.<n>We propose new metrics that capture both turn efficiency and intermediate progress of the agent.<n>We show that our TED framework reveals new insights regarding agent performance across models and user expertise levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-16T16:14:28Z)
• Gaming the Judge: Unfaithful Chain-of-Thought Can Undermine Agent Evaluation [76.5533899503582]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges to evaluate agent performance.<n>We show this paradigm implicitly assumes that the agent's chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning faithfully reflects both its internal reasoning and the underlying environment state.<n>We demonstrate that manipulated reasoning alone can inflate false positive rates of state-of-the-art VLM judges by up to 90% across 800 trajectories spanning diverse web tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T06:07:43Z)
• AgentGuardian: Learning Access Control Policies to Govern AI Agent Behavior [20.817336331051752]
  AgentGuardian governs and protects AI agent operations by enforcing context-aware access-control policies.<n>It effectively detects malicious or misleading inputs while preserving normal agent functionality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-15T14:33:36Z)
• Are Your Agents Upward Deceivers? [73.1073084327614]
  Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents are increasingly used as autonomous subordinates that carry out tasks for users.<n>This raises the question of whether they may also engage in deception, similar to how individuals in human organizations lie to superiors to create a good image or avoid punishment.<n>We observe and define agentic upward deception, a phenomenon in which an agent facing environmental constraints conceals its failure and performs actions that were not requested without reporting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-04T14:47:05Z)
• Agentic Metacognition: Designing a "Self-Aware" Low-Code Agent for Failure Prediction and Human Handoff [0.0]
  Non-deterministic nature of autonomous agents presents reliability challenges.<n> secondary, "metacognitive" layer actively monitors primary LCNC agent.<n>Inspired by human introspection, this layer is designed to predict impending task failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-24T06:10:23Z)
• Tell Me More! Towards Implicit User Intention Understanding of Language Model Driven Agents [110.25679611755962]
  Current language model-driven agents often lack mechanisms for effective user participation, which is crucial given the vagueness commonly found in user instructions. We introduce Intention-in-Interaction (IN3), a novel benchmark designed to inspect users' implicit intentions through explicit queries. We empirically train Mistral-Interact, a powerful model that proactively assesses task vagueness, inquires user intentions, and refines them into actionable goals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-14T14:36:30Z)
• My Actions Speak Louder Than Your Words: When User Behavior Predicts Their Beliefs about Agents' Attributes [5.893351309010412]
  Behavioral science suggests that people sometimes use irrelevant information. We identify an instance of this phenomenon, where users who experience better outcomes in a human-agent interaction systematically rated the agent as having better abilities, being more benevolent, and exhibiting greater integrity in a post hoc assessment than users who experienced worse outcome -- which were the result of their own behavior -- with the same agent. Our analyses suggest the need for augmentation of models so that they account for such biased perceptions as well as mechanisms so that agents can detect and even actively work to correct this and similar biases of users.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-21T21:26:32Z)
• Inverse Online Learning: Understanding Non-Stationary and Reactionary Policies [79.60322329952453]
  We show how to develop interpretable representations of how agents make decisions. By understanding the decision-making processes underlying a set of observed trajectories, we cast the policy inference problem as the inverse to this online learning problem. We introduce a practical algorithm for retrospectively estimating such perceived effects, alongside the process through which agents update them. Through application to the analysis of UNOS organ donation acceptance decisions, we demonstrate that our approach can bring valuable insights into the factors that govern decision processes and how they change over time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-14T17:40:42Z)
• Explaining Reinforcement Learning Policies through Counterfactual Trajectories [147.7246109100945]
  A human developer must validate that an RL agent will perform well at test-time. Our method conveys how the agent performs under distribution shifts by showing the agent's behavior across a wider trajectory distribution. In a user study, we demonstrate that our method enables users to score better than baseline methods on one of two agent validation tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-29T00:52:37Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.