CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning Apr 13, 2026

HiL-Bench (Human-in-Loop Benchmark): Do Agents Know When to Ask for Help?

arXiv AI Archived Apr 13, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2604.09408v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Frontier coding agents solve complex tasks when given complete context but collapse when specifications are incomplete or ambiguous. The bottleneck is not raw capability, but judgment: knowing when to act autonomously and when to ask for help. Current benchmarks are blind to this failure mode. They supply unambiguous detailed instructions and solely reward execution correctness, so an agent that makes a lucky guess for a missing requirement will sc

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence [Submitted on 10 Apr 2026] HiL-Bench (Human-in-Loop Benchmark): Do Agents Know When to Ask for Help? Mohamed Elfeki, Tu Trinh, Kelvin Luu, Guangze Luo, Nathan Hunt, Ernesto Montoya, Nandan Marwaha, Yannis He, Charles Wang, Fernando Crabedo, Alessa Castilo, Bing Liu Frontier coding agents solve complex tasks when given complete context but collapse when specifications are incomplete or ambiguous. The bottleneck is not raw capability, but judgment: knowing when to act autonomously and when to ask for help. Current benchmarks are blind to this failure mode. They supply unambiguous detailed instructions and solely reward execution correctness, so an agent that makes a lucky guess for a missing requirement will score identically to one that would have asked to be certain. We present HiL-Bench (Human-in-the-Loop Benchmark) to measure this selective escalation skill. Each task contains human-validated blockers (missing information, ambiguous requests, contradictory information) that surface only through progressive exploration, not upfront inspection. Our core metric, Ask-F1, the harmonic mean of question precision and blocker recall, captures the tension between over-asking and silent guessing; its structure architecturally prevents gaming through question spam. Evaluation across SWE and text-to-SQL domains reveals a large universal judgment gap: no frontier model recovers more than a fraction of its full-information performance when deciding whether to ask. Failure analysis identifies three key help-seeking patterns: overconfident wrong beliefs with no gap detection; high uncertainty detection yet persistent errors; broad, imprecise escalation without self-correction. These consistent patterns confirm poor help-seeking is a model-level flaw, not task-specific. RL training on shaped Ask-F1 reward shows judgment is trainable: a 32B model improves both help-seeking quality and task pass rate, with gains that transfer across domains. The model does not learn domain-specific heuristics for when to ask; it learns to detect unresolvable uncertainty and act on it. Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) Cite as: arXiv:2604.09408 [cs.AI]   (or arXiv:2604.09408v1 [cs.AI] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.09408 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Mohamed Elfeki [view email] [v1] Fri, 10 Apr 2026 15:21:44 UTC (473 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.AI < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-04 Change to browse by: cs References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Export BibTeX Citation Bookmark Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Demos Related Papers About arXivLabs Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv AI
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    Apr 13, 2026
    Archived
    Apr 13, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗