Searcharxiv⌕ 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

FlexQuant: Elastic Quantization Framework for Locally Hosted LLM on Edge Devices

Deploying LLMs on edge devices presents serious technical challenges. Memory elasticity is crucial for edge devices with unified memory, where memory is shared and fluctuates dynamically. Existing solutions suffer from either poor transition granularity or high storage costs. We propose FlexQuant, a novel elasticity framework that generates an ensemble of quantized models, providing an elastic hosting solution with 31x more deployment options, 15x granularity improvement, and 10x storage reduction compared to SoTA methods. FlexQuant works with most quantization methods and creates a family of trade-off options under various storage limits through our pruning method. It brings great performance and flexibility to the edge deployment of LLMs.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Rethinking Prospect Theory for LLMs: Revealing the Instability of Decision-Making under Epistemic Uncertainty

Real-world decision-making often involves uncertainty expressed in linguistic rather than numerical terms, and Prospect Theory (PT) provides a classic framework for modeling human behavior under such uncertainty. Although recent studies have developed frameworks to estimate PT parameters for Large Language Models (LLMs), few have examined whether PT itself adequately describes LLM decision-making behavior. To address these gaps, we develop a streamlined workflow grounded in a classic behavioral economics experimental paradigm. First, we estimate PT parameters and evaluate how well the resulting model captures LLM decision-making behavior. We then derive probability mappings for epistemic markers in the same context and inject them into prompts to examine the stability of PT parameters under linguistic uncertainty. Our findings suggest that PT does not consistently provide a reliable account of LLM decision-making across models, and that its application to LLMs is likely sensitive to epistemic uncertainty. The findings caution against the deployment of PT-based frameworks in real-world applications where epistemic ambiguity is prevalent, giving valuable insights in behaviour interpretation and future alignment direction for LLM decision-making.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Enabling Regulatory Multi-Agent Collaboration: Architecture, Challenges, and Solutions

Large language models (LLMs)-empowered autonomous agents are transforming both digital and physical environments by enabling adaptive, multi-agent collaboration. While these agents offer significant opportunities across domains such as finance, healthcare, and smart manufacturing, their unpredictable behaviors and heterogeneous capabilities pose substantial governance and accountability challenges. In this paper, we propose a blockchain-enabled layered architecture for regulatory agent collaboration, comprising an agent layer, an off-chain computation layer, and an on-chain anchoring layer. Within this framework, we design three key modules: (i) an agent behavior tracing and arbitration module for automated accountability, (ii) a dynamic reputation evaluation module for trust assessment in collaborative scenarios, and (iii) a malicious behavior forecasting module for early detection of adversarial activities. Our approach establishes a systematic foundation for trustworthy, resilient, and scalable regulatory mechanisms in large-scale agent ecosystems. Finally, we discuss the future research directions for blockchain-enabled regulatory frameworks in multi-agent systems.

cs.AI↗