Skip to content
Source
Agent Control Flash News·· 4h agoAI Score35

主动插话会系统性地太早:UW/AI2 PITCH,全程 57.8% → 直播 19.0%

主动插话会系统性地太早:UW/AI2 PITCH,全程 57.8% → 直播 19.0%

Edge-TTS Studio Audio
Free for all listeners
Click to synthesize audio
00:00
00:00
AI Overview

View PDF HTML (experimental) Abstract: Proactive agents can support group collaboration by surfacing useful information without waiting to be asked, but even relevant contributions can be disruptive if poorly timed. In this work, we isolate the timing question: given a fixed...

Primary Source
Academic Paper·arXiv:2610.25896

PITCH (arXiv:2610.25896)

“View PDF HTML (experimental) Abstract: Proactive agents can support group collaboration by surfacing useful information without waiting to b”

Body

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:Proactive agents can support group collaboration by surfacing useful information without waiting to be asked, but even relevant contributions can be disruptive if poorly timed. In this work, we isolate the timing question: given a fixed candidate contribution such as a clarification or relevant fact, when should an AI agent chime in? We introduce PITCH (Proactive Intervention Timing in CHat), to our knowledge the first benchmark with large-scale human judgments of proactive agent timing collected from participants in the same unscripted multi-party conversations they took part in. To collect high-quality judgments, we design a novel interface in which 2-4 people chat synchronously, author candidate AI contribution messages, place their own and others' contributions into the chat history, and then deliberate as a group about the best placement for each message. PITCH contains 384 candidate contributions and 1,091 judgments, each marking an ideal turn, an acceptable window, or that a contribution should not appear, from 89 participants engaged in 35 conversations. Evaluating 15 models across 28 configurations, we find that while models can place contributions well when given the entire conversation history, they systematically chime in too early when asked to decide live as the conversation unfolds: best-turn accuracy falls from 57.8% to 19.0%, with nearly half of placements occurring before every participant's acceptable window. In comparison, lay humans deciding live are more accurate (23.7% vs 19.0%), and fewer of their placements are premature (39.7% vs 46.4%). Model reasoning traces show that 93% of intervention justifications cite relevance, while almost none consider waiting. By providing a human-grounded benchmark, our work reveals gaps in agents' ability to integrate into group settings and points towards proactive agents that can reason explicitly about appropriate timing.
Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
Cite as: arXiv:2610.25896 [cs.AI]
  (or arXiv:2610.25896v2 [cs.AI] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.25896

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Submission history

From: Ruotong Wang [view email]
[v1] Mon, 19 Oct 2026 06:54:04 UTC (1,065 KB)
[v2] Thu, 22 Oct 2026 04:55:50 UTC (1,065 KB)

Source: Agent Control Flash News · arxiv.org

Related Products & Analysis

Original·站长/Quantara 团队·~3 min read

Cursor Agent 架构全景拆解:从影子工作区到多文件推演引擎

全面剖析 Cursor 在 Agent 模式下的底层技术实现,解析影子分支隔离、LSP 上下文剪枝以及预测性补全的核心架构细节与工程实践经验。

Underlying architectures & industry dynamicsRead Analysis →
Curated·Vercel Changelog·~1 min read

Vercel v0 推出全新多 Agent 协作画布与实时全栈部署预览

动态速评:v0 正在从单一组件生成器演进为全栈应用搭建协作台,尤其是与 Neon/Postgres 的直连极大降低了全栈原型验证成本。

Underlying architectures & industry dynamicsRead Analysis →