PACE: Towards Surfacing Hidden Conflicts in User Requests
Authors: Yoojin Kim, Jihyoung Jang, Hyounghun Kim
Organizations: Department of Computer Science and Engineering, POSTECH · Graduate School of Artificial Intelligence, POSTECH · Department of Computer Science
Personalized assistants should not only comply with user requests but also assess whether those requests are appropriate given the user's current circumstances. However, prior work has primarily focused on accurately executing requests, overlooking the need for assistants to account for context and engage in conflict-based refusal. Furthermore, while existing work on conflict or safety detection relies on explicitly provided factors, real-world scenarios often involve implicit factors that must be retrieved from a knowledge base (KB). To this end, we introduce Personalized Assistants for Conflict Evaluation (PACE), a dataset for evaluating whether models can identify latent constraints, expressed as egocentric knowledge or events, that render seemingly reasonable user requests inappropriate. PACE pairs user requests grounded in well-defined personas with egocentric KB facts, requiring models to integrate contextual evidence to determine whether a request is conflicting. This implicit retrieval setting hinders the direct association between user requests and conflict-inducing knowledge, making it difficult for existing models to identify relevant user-specific facts. To address this challenge, we further propose PaceMaker, a multi-agent framework in which specialized agents coordinate across query reformulation, multi-hop graph traversal, and conflict-aware filtering to retrieve contextually decisive evidence. Experiments on PACE evaluate both evidence retrieval quality and conflict decision accuracy, showing that PaceMaker consistently outperforms existing approaches.
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.
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems implicitly assume mutual consistency among retrieved documents -- an assumption that frequently fails in practice. We present ConflictRAG, a conflict-aware RAG framework that detects, classifies, and resolves knowledge conflicts prior to answer generation. The framework introduces three contributions: (1) a two-stage conflict detection module combining a lightweight embedding-based MLP classifier with selective LLM refinement, reducing API costs by 62% while maintaining 90.8% detection accuracy; (2) an Entropy-TOPSIS framework for data-driven source credibility assessment, improving selection accuracy by 7.1% over manual heuristics; and (3) a Conflict-Aware RAG Score (CARS) for diagnostic evaluation of conflict-handling capabilities. Experiments on three benchmarks against six baselines demonstrate 88.7% conflict-detection F1 and consistent 5.3--6.1% correctness gains over the strongest conflict-aware baseline, with the pipeline transferring effectively across backbone LLMs.