OptionWorld: A Benchmark for Diagnosing Failures of LLMs as Long-Term Personal Assistants

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for everyday assistance, yet existing benchmarks only partially reflect the requests users naturally make in practice. Real-world requests are often open-ended, casually specified, and context-dependent, requiring models not only to follow explicit instructions but also to infer unstated needs from user background and situational context. We introduce xDailyBench, a benchmark of 248 carefully curated tasks spanning 51 scenarios across personal life, white-collar work, learning and research, and cross-domain activities. The tasks are grounded in requests that users have actually completed or genuinely intended to accomplish with AI, and are evaluated with fine-grained binary rubrics covering both explicit and implicit requirements. We evaluate 11 frontier models under standardized agentic settings. The best models achieve a task-level score of 75.6%, while all models perform substantially worse on implicit than explicit requirements, with gaps no less than 9 percentage points. These results reveal implicit requirement inference as a persistent bottleneck for reliably satisfying real-world everyday user needs.

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed as personal assistants. Existing evaluations, however, mostly use short, self-contained requests in static environments. Everyday life assistance is different. A task runs for weeks rather than minutes. The world keeps changing while the agent is not being prompted. Many constraints are never stated outright. An agent that merely answers the request in front of it will fail at such a task. What is needed instead is an agent that stays proactive and consistent. It decides on its own when to act, when to ask, and when to stay silent. It notices changes that nobody announced. It keeps one plan coherent from the first day to the last. No current benchmark measures this. We introduce VibeLifeBench, a benchmark of 200 long-horizon tasks across ten everyday-life domains. Each task is a scripted multi-week timeline in a simulated world of 22 mock services. The world advances on its own clock, and many of its changes are silent, so only an agent that re-inspects the world discovers them. Every task is graded by fine-grained, weighted checks that read only what the agent actually left behind, covering the end state, the timeliness of its actions, and whether it upheld the implicit constraints. We evaluate seven frontier models. All of them score low, which shows how far current agents are from assisting with real life. We will open-source all tasks, environments, and the evaluation framework.

The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has accelerated progress toward universal AI assistants. However, existing benchmarks for personalized assistants remain misaligned with real-world user-assistant interactions, failing to capture the complexity of external contexts and users' cognitive states. To bridge this gap, we propose LifeSim, a user simulator that models user cognition through the Belief-Desire-Intention (BDI) model within physical environments for coherent life trajectories generation, and simulates intention-driven user interactive behaviors. Based on LifeSim, we introduce LifeSim-Eval, a comprehensive benchmark for multi-scenario, long-horizon personalized assistance. LifeSim-Eval covers 8 life domains and 1,200 diverse scenarios, and adopts a multi-turn interactive method to assess models' abilities to complete explicit and implicit intentions, recover user profiles, and produce high-quality responses. Under both single-scenario and long-horizon settings, our experiments reveal that current LLMs face significant limitations in handling implicit intention and long-term user preference modeling.