# Asking for What Was Never Requested: Horizontal and Vertical Proactivity in Agents

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.37236 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.37236/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 86 of its 108 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 29 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 86)

- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [Self-RAG: Learning to Retrieve, Generate, and Critique through Self-Reflection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.11511/) (2023)
- [Search-R1: Training LLMs to Reason and Leverage Search Engines with Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.09516/) (2025)
- [Least-to-Most Prompting Enables Complex Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.10625/) (2022)
- [gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b Model Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.10925/) (2025)
- [Constructing A Multi-hop QA Dataset for Comprehensive Evaluation of Reasoning Steps](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.01060/) (2020)
- [A Diversity-Promoting Objective Function for Neural Conversation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1510.03055/) (2015)
- [Measuring and Narrowing the Compositionality Gap in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03350/) (2022)
- [Does Reinforcement Learning Really Incentivize Reasoning Capacity in LLMs Beyond the Base Model?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.13837/) (2025)
- [SimPO: Simple Preference Optimization with a Reference-Free Reward](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.14734/) (2024)
- [Math-Shepherd: Verify and Reinforce LLMs Step-by-step without Human Annotations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.08935/) (2023)
- [Interleaving Retrieval with Chain-of-Thought Reasoning for Knowledge-Intensive Multi-Step Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.10509/) (2022)
- [MuSiQue: Multihop Questions via Single-hop Question Composition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.00573/) (2021)
- [A General Theoretical Paradigm to Understand Learning from Human Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.12036/) (2023)
- [Did Aristotle Use a Laptop? A Question Answering Benchmark with Implicit Reasoning Strategies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.02235/) (2021)
- [τ2-Bench: Evaluating Conversational Agents in a Dual-Control Environment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.07982/) (2025)
- [GEPA: Reflective Prompt Evolution Can Outperform Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.19457/) (2025)
- [Active Retrieval Augmented Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.06983/) (2023)
- [Adaptive-RAG: Learning to Adapt Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models through Question Complexity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.14403/) (2024)
- [WebThinker: Empowering Large Reasoning Models with Deep Research Capability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.21776/) (2025)
- [A Long Way to Go: Investigating Length Correlations in RLHF](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03716/) (2023)
- [Step-DPO: Step-wise Preference Optimization for Long-chain Reasoning of LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.18629/) (2024)
- [Self-Preference Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21819/) (2024)
- [AI Agents That Matter](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.01502/) (2024)
- [AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: A Conceptual Taxonomy, Applications and Challenges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.10468/) (2025)
- [Fact, Fetch, and Reason: A Unified Evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.12941/) (2024)
- [Adding Error Bars to Evals: A Statistical Approach to Language Model Evaluations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.00640/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

An agent that uses tools typically responds to what the user explicitly asks, yet completing the task may require information the user never requested. Work on proactive agents mainly studies whether and when an agent should act on its own, not what information it should pursue. We study a distinct axis of proactivity: its content. Horizontal proactivity pursues unstated information that the current context already identifies, and vertical proactivity pursues needs that only earlier evidence reveals. A need graph, recovered from a benchmark's own decomposition, records which needs depend on which, so both forms, and whether the agent stops at the right time, can be scored from a transcript without a model judge. To learn this behavior, we propose Q&D (questioner and drafter), which trains a questioner to prefer the question whose continuation retrieves more of the required evidence, with no reward model or judge. On held-out splits of three multi-hop question-answering benchmarks, at equal retrieval spend, the trained questioner improves both forms of proactivity over the same model, prompted, and outperforms a prompted model 15× larger in the same role on two of the three, and the gain persists after controlling for question volume and length. Without further training, we place the questioner in an interactive customer-service agent with a simulated customer, where it completes more tasks while asking fewer questions, and in retail it outperforms the 15× larger model with fewer follow-up turns from the customer. These results show that proactivity depends not only on whether an agent acts without being asked, but also on what it chooses to pursue and when it stops.