PACE: Towards Surfacing Hidden Conflicts in User Requests

As LLMs increasingly act through tools, they must reconcile user instructions, parametric knowledge, and dynamic environmental observations before taking actions. We introduce KC-Bench, a controlled multi-turn benchmark for measuring this capability across world-knowledge conflicts, input inconsistencies, and multi-source temporal conflicts. Its 238 tasks are manually screened from more than 1,000 generated candidates and combine a user simulator, stateful tools, deterministic environment assertions, an open-source natural-language evaluator, and human trajectory verification. Evaluation of nine models, including DeepSeek-V4-Flash, GLM-5.2, and MiniMax-M3, shows substantial cross-domain variation: no model handles factual correction, identity consistency checking, and temporal conflict resolution reliably across all settings. In the simulated environments, missed conflicts can propagate to tool calls or synthetic protected-data flows. KC-Bench isolates this model-level behavior rather than ranking complete agent frameworks, and provides a reproducible diagnostic for developing conflict-aware reasoning and execution safeguards.

Overlapping calendar invitations force busy professionals to repeatedly decide which meetings to attend, reschedule, or decline. We refer to this preference-driven decision process as calendar conflict resolution. Automating this decision process is crucial yet challenging. Scheduling logistics can drain hours, and human delegation often fails at scale, which motivates us to ask: Can we trust large language models (LLMs) or language agents to manage time? To enable a systematic study of this question, we introduce CalConflictBench, a benchmark for long-horizon calendar conflict resolution. In CalConflictBench, conflicts are presented to agents round-by-round over a calendar year, requiring them to infer and adapt to user preferences progressively. Our experiments show that current LLM agents perform poorly with high error rates, e.g., Qwen-3-30B-Think has an average error rate of 35%. To address this gap, we propose PEARL, a reinforcement-learning framework that (i) augments the language agent with an external preference memory that stores and updates inferred strategies (e.g., attendee priorities, topic importance, time/location preferences), and (ii) optimizes the agent with round-wise rewards that directly supervise decision correctness, ranking quality, and memory usage across rounds. Experiments on CalConflictBench show that PEARL achieves an error reduction rate of 0.76 and a 55% improvement in average error rate compared to the strongest baseline.

Personal AI assistants are increasingly deployed as task-oriented, tool-augmented agents that operate within unified service environments to support everyday user activities. In realistic settings, such assistants must reason over persistent user state, respect user-specific configurations and permissions, and sustain long-horizon, constraint-aware interactions across multiple services. Existing benchmarks, however, often fragment service contexts or abstract away user state, limiting their ability to evaluate user-centric personal assistant behavior in realistic service settings. We introduce PAUSE, a user-centric benchmark for evaluating personal AI assistants in stateful, service-integrated environments. PAUSE captures core challenges of real-world assistant deployment by requiring agents to coordinate actions across heterogeneous user-owned resources while maintaining consistency with environment state, authorization constraints over multi-turn interactions. The benchmark incorporates explicit user-agent interaction via realistic user simulation, enabling evaluation beyond static tool execution. To support principled and reproducible evaluation, PAUSE adopts a multi-regime evaluation framework aligned with task characteristics. Open-ended service management tasks are assessed using semantic and trajectory-level behavioral metrics, while constraint-intensive tasks admit deterministic, state-based verification. Benchmark results show that even state-of-the-art proprietary models fail to reach 70% task completion on scenarios requiring stateful reasoning and configuration awareness, revealing consistent and interpretable failure patterns. Finally, we present a user-centric synthesis pipeline that enables scalable generation of coherent service environments, user configurations, and reliably annotated tasks, supporting benchmark extensibility and future research.