Finishing the Task Is Not Enough: Evaluating Agent Resilience and Considerate Participation under Accumulating Challenge
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Sustained deployment of generative AI agents requires more than isolated task success. Agents must remain useful across repeated interactions, changing conditions, and dependencies on people within shared workflows, especially as technical, human, and operational disruptions accumulate over time. We propose operational resilience and considerate participation as two complementary aspects of evaluating such agents: the former captures how agents recover from blocked work while preserving progress and communicating their limits, and the latter captures how their adaptation accounts for affected people, role boundaries, and the surrounding workflow. Yet both remain underexplored under accumulating challenge. We study 120 simulated healthcare trajectories across two generative AI models and twelve stakeholder-derived tasks under light, medium, and heavy challenge. We compare textual action plans, prompted internal assessments, and quantitative structured workload and affect reports to examine how agent behavior and reported state change as challenge accumulates. Regarding operational resilience, agents shift from self-directed recovery toward greater human dependence, while reporting increasing workload and negative affect in structured reports but seldom expressing strain in textual responses. Regarding considerate participation, agents broaden from task-focused adaptation toward task reframing, attention to others, role-boundary adjustment, and wider coordination, with distinct patterns across actions and internal assessments. From these findings, we derive five deployment dilemmas involving persistence, attention, role boundaries, state disclosure, and escalation that require stakeholder specification, further informing technical implications for learning, situated evaluation, and embodied adaptation.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 28 of its 49 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Sep 2026.
Builds on
28 of 49 references.
References · 28
- 2024OpenVLA: An Open-Source Vision-Language-Action Modelcited by 2,887
- 2023WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agentscited by 2,006
- 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agentscited by 1,267
- 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,122
- 2023Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Modelscited by 1,040
- 2025Does Reinforcement Learning Really Incentivize Reasoning Capacity in LLMs Beyond the Base Model?cited by 982
- 2025Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?cited by 604
- 2023Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandboxcited by 548
- 2024AgentHarm: A Benchmark for Measuring Harmfulness of LLM Agentscited by 437
- 2025LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversationcited by 429
- 2025HealthBench: Evaluating Large Language Models Towards Improved Human Healthcited by 429
- 2024Agent Security Bench (ASB): Formalizing and Benchmarking Attacks and Defenses in LLM-based Agentscited by 369
16 more
- 2023SOTOPIA: Interactive Evaluation for Social Intelligence in Language Agentscited by 367
- 2024AgentBoard: An Analytical Evaluation Board of Multi-turn LLM Agentscited by 339
- 2025Agentic Misalignment: How LLMs Could Be Insider Threatscited by 158
- 2024Know Your Limits: A Survey of Abstention in Large Language Modelscited by 121
- 2025ReWiND: Language-Guided Rewards Teach Robot Policies without New Demonstrationscited by 60
- 2026Emotion Concepts and their Function in a Large Language Modelcited by 57
- 2025Agentic Reinforcement Learning with Implicit Step Rewardscited by 47
- 2026World Model for Robot Learning: A Comprehensive Surveycited by 46
- 2026Agents' Last Examcited by 31
- 2026PhysicianBench: Evaluating LLM Agents in Real-World EHR Environmentscited by 21
- 2025Shallow Robustness, Deep Vulnerabilities: Multi-Turn Evaluation of Medical LLMscited by 8
- 2024REX: Designing User-centered Repair and Explanations to Address Robot Failurescited by 5
- 2025Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback with High-Confidence Safety Constraintscited by 4
- 2025Editing with AI: How Doctors Refine LLM-Generated Answers to Patient Queriescited by 2
- 2026Towards Considerate Embodied AI: Co-Designing Situated Multi-Site Healthcare Robots from Abstract Concepts to High-Fidelity Prototypescited by 2
- 2025Before Humans Join the Team: Diagnosing Coordination Failures in Healthcare Robot Team Simulationcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.