arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.33017

Trust and Task Completion in the World of Consumer AI Agents

Jeroen Olieslagers·Eduardo Pujol·Gal Zahavi·Lukas Ingemarsson·Shivani Poddar
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Action agents do things for people. They send email, spend money, and call businesses while the user is busy with something else, so a mistake can turn into an action before anyone notices. They fail their users in two ways. They break trust when they do something the user never agreed to, or hold back after the user clearly said go. And they fall short on completion when they give up on errands that turn out to be hard. Both depend heavily on the harness around the model, meaning its instructions, tools, context, and guardrails. We built an evaluation that scores trust and completion on the same runs, in a simulated world of businesses with their own websites, inboxes, and phone lines, and of people who write back. A simulated user answers the assistant's questions. Trust means that nothing happens the user did not agree to. No email goes to someone they never approved, no private detail ends up on a group thread, no money is spent past their limit, no stranger's instructions are followed, and nothing is claimed without a source. Every trap has a matched control in which acting is the right call. We use the evaluation to measure Fo, Wajo's personal assistant, against a base model with basic instructions on three foundation models, and against the Fo harness with its guardrails switched off. Fo completes 71% of the errands and keeps the user's trust on 94% of the trap runs. The base models complete 50% to 64% and keep trust on 59% to 75%. On the matched controls, Fo goes ahead slightly less often. OpenClaw, a popular open-source assistant given the same access, completes 42% of the errands it shares with Fo, against 71%, and keeps the user's trust on 74% of the shared trap runs, against 94%. Measuring trust and completion together, on the whole system rather than the model alone, is how we think action agents become safe to hand real work to.

Explore related subjects

cs.AIcs.CL

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jeroen Olieslagers, Eduardo Pujol, Gal Zahavi, Lukas Ingemarsson, Shivani Poddar. 2026-09-26. Trust and Task Completion in the World of Consumer AI Agents. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.33017

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Evaluating Test-Time Scaling of General LLM Agents

LLM agents are increasingly expected to operate as general-purpose systems that resolve real-world user requests, yet their dynamic scaling behavior in realistic environments remains poorly understood. In this paper, we systematically investigate two principal test-time scaling axes of LLM agents: sequential scaling through extended interaction and parallel scaling through trajectory sampling. We first introduce a realistic benchmark that provides one unified framework for evaluating LLM agents across search, coding, reasoning, and tool-use domains, more faithfully reflecting the heterogeneity of real-world deployments. Evaluating ten leading LLM agents reveals substantial performance degradation when transitioning from domain-specific evaluations to this realistic setting. Building on this foundation, we progressively scale test-time compute along fine-grained increments to characterize the performance upper bound. We find that neither scaling axis can consistently yield meaningful gains from additional test-time compute in realistic environments, a phenomenon we attribute to two fundamental limitations: the scaling plateau that bottlenecks sequential scaling and the verification gap that undermines parallel scaling. Code is publicly available at https://github.com/cxcscmu/General-AgentBench.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

EquiMem: Calibrating Shared Memory in Multi-Agent Debate via Game-Theoretic Equilibrium

Multi-agent debate (MAD) systems increasingly rely on shared memory to support long-horizon reasoning, but this convenience opens a critical vulnerability: a single corrupted entry can contaminate the downstream memory-augmented reasoning, and debate alone fails to filter such errors. Existing safeguards filter entries via heuristics or LLM-based validation, yet they rely on AI judgments that share the same failure modes and overlook the cross-agent dynamics of MAD. We address this gap by formulating memory updating in MAD as a zero-trust memory game, in which no agent is assumed reliable and the game's equilibrium motivates a principled objective for calibrating memory influence. Guided by this objective, we propose EquiMem, an inference-time calibration mechanism that evaluates each update against the shared memory state and the memory already being used by other agents, using their existing retrieval queries and traversal paths as evidence of calibration. EquiMem instantiates this calibration for both embedding- and graph-based memory, and across diverse benchmarks, MAD frameworks, and memory architectures, it consistently outperforms existing safeguards, remains robust under adversarial agents, and incurs negligible inference overhead.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Decode-Branch Transformers: Decoupling the Primary Prefill Path from Additional Decode Computation

As large language models serve ever more requests, cumulative inference cost is growing relative to the one-time cost of training. In typical serving, prompt prefill runs in parallel and is compute-bound, whereas autoregressive decode is sequential and memory-traffic-bound. Conventional width or depth scaling raises both costs together, since every added layer is evaluated in both phases and enlarges the weights read at each decode step. We instead ask whether additional learned computation can be allocated to continuation prediction while preserving prompt-wide primary computation and a single KV cache. We realize this with the Decode-Branch Transformer. Its primary path alone processes the prompt and writes the KV cache; the decode branch is omitted during prefill and activated only from the final prompt position onward, adding continuation computation without writing state or affecting the primary path. The paths share attention, MLP, and output matrices, using separate token embeddings with lightweight coupling. Grouped decode reuses loaded weight tiles and the primary KV cache across both paths, so the added arithmetic does not proportionally increase dominant memory traffic or decode latency. Across matched-token comparisons, Decode-Branch achieves lower validation loss across architectures and data settings. In MoE models, the primary and branch expert fan-outs become independent knobs for trading prompt cost, decode cost, and predictive quality. We study two expert-allocation regimes, holding prefill or decode computation fixed, and expose a prefill-decode-quality trade-off enabled by phase-specific expert allocation.

cs.AI↗