# Plan-Then-Execute: An Empirical Study of User Trust and Team Performance When Using LLM Agents As A Daily Assistant

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.01390 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.01390/

## Key facts

- Cited by 54 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 58 of its 116 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 3 Feb 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/agents/general-llm-agent-frameworks-and-benchmarks/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 58)

- [On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07258/) (2021)
- [Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03442/) (2023)
- [A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.11432/) (2023)
- [Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.03629/) (2022)
- [The Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.07864/) (2023)
- [Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1702.08608/) (2017)
- [Right for the Wrong Reasons: Diagnosing Syntactic Heuristics in Natural Language Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1902.01007/) (2019)
- [Adversarial Examples for Evaluating Reading Comprehension Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.07328/) (2017)
- [Plan-and-Solve Prompting: Improving Zero-Shot Chain-of-Thought Reasoning by Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04091/) (2023)
- [Describe, Explain, Plan and Select: Interactive Planning with Large Language Models Enables Open-World Multi-Task Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.01560/) (2023)
- [On the Planning Abilities of Large Language Models : A Critical Investigation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.15771/) (2023)
- [Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.02114/) (2020)
- [ToolQA: A Dataset for LLM Question Answering with External Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.13304/) (2023)
- [AI Chains: Transparent and Controllable Human-AI Interaction by Chaining Large Language Model Prompts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.01691/) (2021)
- [Predict Responsibly: Improving Fairness and Accuracy by Learning to Defer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1711.06664/) (2017)
- [LLMs Can't Plan, But Can Help Planning in LLM-Modulo Frameworks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01817/) (2024)
- [Formalizing Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Prerequisites, Causes and Goals of Human Trust in AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.07487/) (2020)
- [Autonomous Agents Modelling Other Agents: A Comprehensive Survey and Open Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1709.08071/) (2017)
- [Deep Learning for Medical Anomaly Detection -- A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.02364/) (2020)
- [AI Transparency in the Age of LLMs: A Human-Centered Research Roadmap](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.01941/) (2023)
- [To Trust or to Think: Cognitive Forcing Functions Can Reduce Overreliance on AI in AI-assisted Decision-making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.09692/) (2021)
- [Explanations Can Reduce Overreliance on AI Systems During Decision-Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.06823/) (2022)
- ["Why is 'Chicago' deceptive?" Towards Building Model-Driven Tutorials for Humans](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.05871/) (2020)
- [Planning, Creation, Usage: Benchmarking LLMs for Comprehensive Tool Utilization in Real-World Complex Scenarios](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.17167/) (2024)
- [Appropriate Reliance on AI Advice: Conceptualization and the Effect of Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.02187/) (2023)
- [Human-AI Collaboration Enables More Empathic Conversations in Text-based Peer-to-Peer Mental Health Support](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.15144/) (2022)
- [Human-AI Collaboration via Conditional Delegation: A Case Study of Content Moderation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.11788/) (2022)
- [Who Should I Trust: AI or Myself? Leveraging Human and AI Correctness Likelihood to Promote Appropriate Trust in AI-Assisted Decision-Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.05809/) (2023)
- ["I'm Not Sure, But...": Examining the Impact of Large Language Models' Uncertainty Expression on User Reliance and Trust](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.00623/) (2024)
- [TalkToModel: Explaining Machine Learning Models with Interactive Natural Language Conversations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.04154/) (2022)

## Built on by (most cited first, 30 of 54)

- [AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: A Conceptual Taxonomy, Applications and Challenges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.10468/) (2025)
- [LLM-based Agents Suffer from Hallucinations: A Survey of Taxonomy, Methods, and Directions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.18970/) (2025)
- [Privacy in Action: Towards Realistic Privacy Mitigation and Evaluation for LLM-Powered Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.17488/) (2025)
- [A Vision for Auto Research with LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.18765/) (2025)
- [Measuring and mitigating overreliance to build human-compatible AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.08010/) (2025)
- [The Trust Paradox in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems: When Collaboration Becomes a Security Vulnerability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.18563/) (2025)
- [Characterizing Faults in Agentic AI: A Taxonomy of Types, Symptoms, and Root Causes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.06847/) (2026)
- [Trustless Autonomy: Understanding Motivations, Benefits, and Governance Dilemmas in Self-Sovereign Decentralized AI Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09757/) (2025)
- [SELAUR: Self Evolving LLM Agent via Uncertainty-aware Rewards](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.21158/) (2026)
- [PrefIx: Understand and Adapt to User Preference in Human-Agent Interaction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.06714/) (2026)
- [Mapping the Design Space of User Experience for Computer Use Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.07283/) (2026)
- [ActMem: Bridging the Gap Between Memory Retrieval and Reasoning in LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.00026/) (2026)
- [Comparing Human Oversight Strategies for Computer-Use Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.04918/) (2026)
- [Can LLM Agents Respond to Disasters? Benchmarking Heterogeneous Geospatial Reasoning in Emergency Operations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.11633/) (2026)
- [LeechHijack: Covert Computational Resource Exploitation in Intelligent Agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.02321/) (2025)
- [SoMe: A Realistic Benchmark for LLM-based Social Media Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.14720/) (2025)
- [Stop Hand-Holding Your Coding Agent: Engineering the Loops that Replace Step-by-Step Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.00038/) (2026)
- [PATS: Personality-Aware Teaching Strategies with Large Language Model Tutors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.08402/) (2026)
- [Evaluating Privilege Usage of Agents with Real-World Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.28166/) (2026)
- [AppWorld-UL: Benchmarking Diverse Agent-User Interactions for Tool-Use](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.20536/) (2026)
- [Mind the Gap! Choice Independence in Using Multilingual LLMs for Persuasive Co-Writing Tasks in Different Languages](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.09532/) (2025)
- [Interaction-Driven Browsing: A Human-in-the-Loop Conceptual Framework Informed by Human Web Browsing for Browser-Using Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.12049/) (2025)
- ["LLM Agent Performance" Is Not a Single Evaluation Target](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.03238/) (2026)
- [AISA: Awakening Intrinsic Safety Awareness in Large Language Models against Jailbreak Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.13547/) (2026)
- [Overseeing Agents Without Constant Oversight: Challenges and Opportunities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.16844/) (2026)
- [Let's Get You Hired: A Job Seeker's Perspective on Multi-Agent Recruitment Systems for Explaining Hiring Decisions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.20312/) (2025)
- [Who Tests the Testers? Systematic Enumeration and Coverage Audit of LLM Agent Tool Call Safety](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.18245/) (2026)
- [SkillFuzz: Fuzzing Skill Composition for Implicit Intents Discovery in Open Skill Marketplaces](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.02345/) (2026)
- [DoubleAgents: Human-Agent Alignment in a Socially Embedded Workflow](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.12626/) (2025)
- [REVISION:Reflective Intent Mining and Online Reasoning Auxiliary for E-commerce Visual Search System Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.22739/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Since the explosion in popularity of ChatGPT, large language models (LLMs) have continued to impact our everyday lives. Equipped with external tools that are designed for a specific purpose (e.g., for flight booking or an alarm clock), LLM agents exercise an increasing capability to assist humans in their daily work. Although LLM agents have shown a promising blueprint as daily assistants, there is a limited understanding of how they can provide daily assistance based on planning and sequential decision making capabilities. We draw inspiration from recent work that has highlighted the value of 'LLM-modulo' setups in conjunction with humans-in-the-loop for planning tasks. We conducted an empirical study (N = 248) of LLM agents as daily assistants in six commonly occurring tasks with different levels of risk typically associated with them (e.g., flight ticket booking and credit card payments). To ensure user agency and control over the LLM agent, we adopted LLM agents in a plan-then-execute manner, wherein the agents conducted step-wise planning and step-by-step execution in a simulation environment. We analyzed how user involvement at each stage affects their trust and collaborative team performance. Our findings demonstrate that LLM agents can be a double-edged sword -- (1) they can work well when a high-quality plan and necessary user involvement in execution are available, and (2) users can easily mistrust the LLM agents with plans that seem plausible. We synthesized key insights for using LLM agents as daily assistants to calibrate user trust and achieve better overall task outcomes. Our work has important implications for the future design of daily assistants and human-AI collaboration with LLM agents.