CORTEXA
← Browse
arxivcs.AI2026-06-27

Agentic Abstention: Do Agents Know When to Stop Instead of Act?

Han Luo, Bingbing Wen, Lucy Lu Wang

LLM agents are expected to act over multiple turns, using search, browsing interfaces, and terminal tools to complete user goals. Yet not every goal is well specified or achievable in the available environment. In such cases, a reliable agent should recognize that further interaction is unlikely to help and abstain from additional tool calls. We define Agentic Abstention, the problem of deciding when an agent should stop acting under uncertainty. Unlike standard LLM abstention, which is usually evaluated as a single-turn answer-or-abstain decision, agentic abstention is a sequential decision problem: an agent can answer, abstain, or gather more information at each turn, and the need to abstain may only become clear after interacting with the environment. We study this problem across web shopping, terminal environments, and question answering, evaluating 13 LLM-as-agent systems and 2 agent scaffolds on more than 28,000 tasks. Our results show that the main challenge is not only whether agents can abstain, but also when they abstain. Some agents never abstain when they should, while others do so only after many unnecessary interactions. This gap is especially large on tasks where the instruction appears feasible until the environment reveals otherwise (e.g., no valid result matches the instruction). We further find that model scale, reasoning, and agent scaffolding affect abstention in different ways, where larger or more capable models sometimes perform worse at timely abstention. Finally, we introduce CONVOLVE, a context engineering method for improving agentic abstention that distills full interaction trajectories into reusable stopping rules. On WebShop, CONVOLVE substantially improves timely abstention without updating model parameters, raising Llama-3.3-70B's timely recall rate from 26.7 to 57.4. Our dataset and code are available at https://lhannnn.github.io/agentic-abstention

View free PDFSource page

Related papers

arxivcs.AIcs.CV2026-07-24

SceneActBench: Can Agents Act on the 3D Scenes They See?

Yifei Zhao, Xiangxin Zhou, Wenhao Yang, Jiaqi Tang, Pu Jian, Huanjin Yao, et al.

Vision-language model (VLM) agents increasingly use tools to act on 3D scenes rather than only describe them. Existing 3D benchmarks score textual responses or single-object operations, leaving agent action on complete multi-object 3D scenes under evaluated. We present SceneActBe…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.AIcs.MAcs.SE2026-07-31

Beyond Component Testing: Validating Agentic AI Systems

Fabio Orazio Mirto, Luca D'Agati, Giuseppe Tricomi, Stefano Silvestri, Francesco Longo, Antonio Puliafito, et al.

Agentic AI systems act through multi-step trajectories that combine planning, tool use, memory, interaction, and adaptation. This behavior stretches validation practice beyond component testing and one-shot input--output evaluation, because acceptable system behavior now depends…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.AI2026-07-23

ICAE-Bench: Evaluating Coding Agents as Interactive Project Builders

Zhongyuan Peng, Dan Huang, Chuyu Zhang, Caijun Xu, Changyi Xiao, Shibo Hong, et al.

The recent emergence of vibe-coding workflows is changing what coding agents are expected to do. Instead of merely completing code under fully specified instructions, agents are increasingly expected to transform incomplete product intent into working software by combining variou…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.AI2026-07-24

Do Agent Benchmarks Measure Capability? Protocol Validity in the Age of Agentic AI

Jiaqi Shao, Hanck Chen, Wei Zhang, Maxm Pan, Bing Luo

Agent benchmarks increasingly evaluate repository editing, web research, terminal use, and long-horizon interaction. Their scores support capability claims only when the evaluation protocol keeps the intended capability necessary for success. Recent reward-hacking benchmarks and…

View free PDFSource page