Ask Early, Ask Late, Ask Right: When Does Clarification Timing Matter for Long-Horizon Agents?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.07937v1
• Date: Fri, 08 May 2026 16:08:03 GMT
• Title: Ask Early, Ask Late, Ask Right: When Does Clarification Timing Matter for Long-Horizon Agents?
• Abstract summary: We introduce a forced-injection framework that provides ground-truth clarifications at controlled points in the agent's trajectory.<n>We find that the value of clarification depends sharply on what information is missing.<n>A complementary study of 300 unscripted sessions reveals that no current frontier model asks within the empirically optimal window.
• Score: 0.7199239000118145
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Long-horizon AI agents execute complex workflows spanning hundreds of sequential actions, yet a single wrong assumption early on can cascade into irreversible errors. When instructions are incomplete, the agent must decide not only whether to ask for clarification but when, and no prior work measures how clarification value changes over the course of execution. We introduce a forced-injection framework that provides ground-truth clarifications at controlled points in the agent's trajectory across four information dimensions (goal, input, constraint, context), three agent benchmarks, and four frontier models (three per benchmark; one on a single benchmark only; 84 task variants; 6,000+ runs). Counter to the common intuition that "earlier is always better," we find that the value of clarification depends sharply on what information is missing: goal clarification loses nearly all value after 10% of execution (pass@3 drops from 0.78 to baseline), while input clarification retains value through roughly 50%. Deferring any clarification type past mid-trajectory degrades performance below never asking at all. Cross-model Kendall tau correlations (0.78-0.87 among models sharing identical task coverage; 0.34-0.67 across the full 4-model panel) confirm these timing profiles are substantially task-intrinsic. A complementary study of 300 unscripted sessions reveals that no current frontier model asks within the empirically optimal window, with strategies ranging from over-asking (52% of sessions) to never asking at all. These empirical demand curves provide the quantitative foundation that existing theoretical frameworks require but have lacked, and establish concrete design targets for timing-aware clarification policies. Code and data will be publicly released.

Related papers

• Accuracy Is Not Service: A Decision-Aware Benchmark for Intermittent-Demand Forecasting [4.1751058176413105]
  We benchmarked 38 forecasting methods spanning classical, intermittent-demand, machine-learning, deep-learning, and pretrained foundation models.<n>Forecast-accuracy rank and order-service rank are negatively correlated on the industrial panel, at -0.555, across methods evaluated on 20,330 real multi-item orders.<n>For intermittent demand, the lowest-error forecast need not deliver the highest service, which can be reduced without retraining.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-12T09:51:30Z)
• xDailyBench: Benchmarking LLMs on Professional Consultation for Real-Life Problems [57.62172039072062]
  We introduce xDailyBench, a benchmark of 248 carefully curated tasks spanning 51 scenarios across personal life, white-collar work, learning and research, and cross-domain activities.<n>The tasks are grounded in requests that users have actually completed or genuinely intended to accomplish with AI, and are evaluated with fine-grained binary rubrics covering both explicit and implicit requirements.<n>The best models achieve a task-level score of 75.6%, while all models perform substantially worse on implicit than explicit requirements, with gaps no less than 9 percentage points.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-07T17:30:58Z)
• Governance at the Boundary: How Agent Decomposition Degrades Policy Compliance [6.411104724993454]
  We introduce Fiducia-bench, a benchmark for the governability of financial agents.<n>We use it to study a question no prior benchmark addresses: does an agent degrade its governance?<n>Policy-relevant facts discovered by one component are attenuated at the handoff boundary before reaching the component that must act on them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-17T03:31:59Z)
• ACCORD: Action-Conditioned Contextual Grounding for Language Agents [69.73525608707764]
  ACCORD (Action-Conditioned Contextual Grounding) is an agent framework for adaptive grounding.<n>We show that current agents often fail to do so. They act from assumed rather than observed specifics, overlook information they could have gathered, and fail to incorporate evidence that has already been returned.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-15T09:05:55Z)
• ReacTOD: Bounded Neuro-Symbolic Agentic NLU for Zero-Shot Dialogue State Tracking [2.2573512203799626]
  We propose ReacTOD, a bounded neuro-symbolic architecture that reformulates NLU as discrete tool calls within a self-correcting ReAct loop governed by deterministic validation.<n>A bounded ReAct loop enables iterative self-correction, improving accuracy by up to 9.3 percentage points over single-pass inference on MultiWOZ.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T20:06:04Z)
• Knowing but Not Correcting: Routine Task Requests Suppress Factual Correction in LLMs [26.062372963777452]
  LLMs reliably correct false claims when presented in isolation, yet when the same claims are embedded in task-oriented requests, they often comply rather than correct.<n>We term this failure mode emphcorrection suppression and construct a benchmark of 300 false premises to systematically evaluate it across eight models.<n> Suppression rates range from 19% to 90%, with four models exceeding 80%, establishing correction suppression as a prevalent and severe phenomenon.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-07T10:04:39Z)
• KWBench: Measuring Unprompted Problem Recognition in Knowledge Work [0.0]
  KWBench is a benchmark for unprompted problem recognition in large language models.<n>It can identify a professional scenario before attempting to solve it.<n>It contains 223 tasks sourced from practitioners across acquisitions, contract negotiations, clinical pharmacy, organizational politics, fraud analysis, and incentive design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-17T07:04:54Z)
• ImplicitMemBench: Measuring Unconscious Behavioral Adaptation in Large Language Models [60.14219417402433]
  Existing memory benchmarks for LLM agents evaluate explicit recall of facts, yet overlook implicit memory where experience becomes automated behavior without conscious retrieval.<n>We introduce ImplicitMemBench, the first systematic benchmark evaluating implicit memory through three constructs drawn from standard cognitive-science accounts of non-declarative memory.<n>Our 300-item suite employs a unified Learning/Priming-Interfere-Test protocol with first-attempt scoring.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-09T10:26:32Z)
• ClawArena: Benchmarking AI Agents in Evolving Information Environments [61.664633997138004]
  ClawArena is a benchmark for evaluating AI agents in evolving information environments.<n>Each scenario maintains a complete hidden ground truth while exposing the agent only to noisy, partial, and sometimes contradictory traces.<n> evaluation is organized around three coupled challenges: multi-source conflict reasoning, dynamic belief revision, and implicit personalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-05T17:55:23Z)
• Mitigating LLM Hallucinations through Domain-Grounded Tiered Retrieval [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved unprecedented fluency but remain susceptible to "hallucinations"<n>We propose a tiered retrieval and verification architecture designed to intercept factual inaccuracies by shifting LLMs from pattern-matchers to verified truth-seekers.<n>System was evaluated across 650 queries from five diverse benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-18T15:59:30Z)
• ACAR: Adaptive Complexity Routing for Multi-Model Ensembles with Auditable Decision Traces [3.151184728006369]
  We present ACAR, a measurement framework for studying multi-model orchestration under auditable conditions.<n>ACAR uses self-consistency variance (sigma) computed from N=3 probe samples to route tasks across single-model, two-model, and three-model execution modes.<n>We evaluate ACAR on 1,510 tasks spanning four benchmarks, producing more than 7,550 auditable runs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-06T23:27:17Z)
• Can We Predict Before Executing Machine Learning Agents? [74.39460101251792]
  We formalize the task of Data-centric Solution Preference and construct a comprehensive corpus of 18,438 pairwise comparisons.<n>We demonstrate that LLMs exhibit significant predictive capabilities when primed with a Verified Data Analysis Report.<n>We instantiate this framework in FOREAGENT, an agent that employs a Predict-then-Verify loop, achieving a 6x acceleration in convergence while surpassing execution-based baselines by +6%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-09T16:44:17Z)
• Encyclo-K: Evaluating LLMs with Dynamically Composed Knowledge Statements [78.87065404966002]
  Existing benchmarks predominantly curate questions at the question level.<n>We propose Encyclo-K, a statement-based benchmark that rethinks benchmark construction from the ground up.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-31T13:55:54Z)

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.