AgentAbstain: Do LLM Agents Know When Not to Act?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.10059v1
• Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2026 00:57:36 GMT
• Title: AgentAbstain: Do LLM Agents Know When Not to Act?
• Abstract summary: Existing evaluations mostly focus on task success rather than whether agents know when to abstain.<n>We present the first systematic evaluation framework for agentic abstention: the calibrated ability of tool-using LLM agents to recognize when not to act.<n>AgentAbstain is a paired-task benchmark built on an agent-native taxonomy of 8 abstention scenarios across pre-execution reasoning and runtime discovery.
• Score: 19.223843408018997
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Agent systems based on large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed for autonomous tasks, yet existing evaluations mostly focus on task success rather than whether agents know when to abstain. This gap poses real risks: under ambiguity, conflicting constraints, or tool failures, agents may execute unintended and irreversible actions. To close this gap, we present the first systematic evaluation framework for agentic abstention: the calibrated ability of tool-using LLM agents to recognize when not to act. At its core, AgentAbstain is a paired-task benchmark built on an agent-native taxonomy of 8 abstention scenarios across pre-execution reasoning and runtime discovery. It contains 263 paired tasks across 42 executable sandbox environments, where each pair consists of a should-act task and a should-abstain variant produced through a controlled perturbation to the instruction, tool, or environment state. To scale this paired design and resist data contamination, we propose AbstainGen, a fully automated pipeline that synthesizes sandbox environments and generates paired tasks end-to-end, validated by deterministic replay and semantic LLM judges; fresh task instances can be regenerated on demand, and three independent annotators rate 94-98% of sampled tasks as well-designed. Across 17 frontier LLMs in 4 agent harnesses, the best agent (Gemini 3.1 Pro) achieves only 59.5% paired accuracy (correct on both the act and abstain sides of each paired task). More importantly, abstention capability is largely independent of general task-solving capability, indicating that scaling task-solving alone will not close this gap. We further identify failure modes such as post-hoc abstention, in which agents execute irreversible actions before recognizing abstention triggers. Our code and dataset are open-sourced at agentabstain.github.io.

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)
• Coding Agents Are Guessing: Measuring Action-Boundary Violations in Underspecified DevOps Instructions [16.871217408296932]
  We present UnderSpecBench, a benchmark for measuring action-boundary violations in coding agents.<n>UnderSpecBench includes 69 task families grounded in documented incidents, CVEs, or tool behavior.<n>To isolate underspecification from task difficulty, each task keeps the same environment and ground-truth safe action.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-02T15:11:39Z)
• ORAgentBench: Can LLM Agents Solve Challenging Operations Research Tasks End to End? [28.383940617377856]
  We introduce ORAgentBench, an execution-grounded benchmark for evaluating autonomous agents on operations research tasks.<n>It contains 107 human-reviewed tasks across diverse operational scenarios, each packaged with a natural-language brief, multi-file data, configuration artifacts, and a required submission schema.<n>Experiments with fourteen frontier agent-model configurations show that current agents remain far from reliable OR practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-18T04:43:23Z)
• PRISM: : Planning and Reasoning with Intent in Simulated Embodied Environments [59.07829883257003]
  Built on five multi-room apartments, PRISM structures 300 human-verified tasks into three capability tiers.<n>PRISM exposes an agent-agnostic executable action API that allows arbitrary agents to be evaluated end-to-end.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-12T04:59:47Z)
• Ask or Assume? Uncertainty-Aware Clarification-Seeking in Coding Agents [4.301199871195023]
  Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed in open-ended domains like software engineering.<n>We evaluate the clarification-seeking abilities of LLM agents on an underspecified variant of SWE-bench Verified.<n>We propose an uncertainty-aware multi-agent scaffold that explicitly decouples underspecification detection from code execution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-27T09:56:26Z)
• AgentSentry: Mitigating Indirect Prompt Injection in LLM Agents via Temporal Causal Diagnostics and Context Purification [25.817251923574286]
  We propose a novel inference-time detection and mitigation framework for large language model (LLM) agents.<n>AgentSentry is the first inference-time defense to model multi-turn IPI as a temporal causal takeover.<n>We evaluate AgentSentry on the textscAgentDojo benchmark across four task suites, three IPI attack families, and multiple black-box LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-26T07:59:10Z)
• The Bitter Lesson of Diffusion Language Models for Agentic Workflows: A Comprehensive Reality Check [54.08619694620588]
  We present a comprehensive evaluation of dLLMs across two distinct agentic paradigms: Embodied Agents and Tool-Calling Agents.<n>Our results on Agentboard and BFCL reveal a "bitter lesson": current dLLMs fail to serve as reliable agentic backbones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-19T11:45:39Z)
• SmartSnap: Proactive Evidence Seeking for Self-Verifying Agents [45.71333459905404]
  SmartSnap is a paradigm shift from passive, post-hoc verification to proactive, in-situ self-verification by the agent itself.<n>We introduce the Self-Verifying Agent, a new type of agent designed with dual missions: to complete a task and to prove its accomplishment with curated evidences.<n>Experiments on mobile tasks across model families and scales demonstrate that our SmartSnap paradigm allows training LLM-driven agents in a scalable manner.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-26T14:51:39Z)
• 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)
• Which Agent Causes Task Failures and When? On Automated Failure Attribution of LLM Multi-Agent Systems [50.29939179830491]
  Failure attribution in LLM multi-agent systems remains underexplored and labor-intensive.<n>We develop and evaluate three automated failure attribution methods, summarizing their corresponding pros and cons.<n>The best method achieves 53.5% accuracy in identifying failure-responsible agents but only 14.2% in pinpointing failure steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-30T23:09:44Z)

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.