Writing study: AgentAbstain: Do LLM Agents Know When Not to Act?

NeurIPS overviewCorpus atlasBy contribution typeVisual galleryRules & templateWriting patternsPaper studies

← NeurIPS 2026 oral writing corpus

Xun Liu, Yi E Zhang, Vira Kasprova, Parisa Rabbani, Pardissadat Zahraei, Tianyu Zhang, Ali Ebrahimpour-Boroojeny, Varun Chandrasekaran · Official NeurIPS 2026 oral record

Observed writing choices, not acceptance rules. This study examines the inspected manuscript version. It does not establish why the paper was accepted or that its presentation choices should be copied unchanged.

Figure, table and section ledger

Editorial contribution type: Datasets, benchmarks & measurement (primary).

Layout extraction, not a required paper template. Counts are distinct caption labels; a multi-panel figure counts once. Section spans are estimated from heading positions, including floats and whitespace. Method and limitations.

Canonical PDF

56 physical pages

Before references / appendix

≈ 9.23 page-equivalents

Main figures / tables

7 / 1

Attached appendix figures / tables

6 / 15

Attached appendix span

≈ 37.91 page-equivalents

Before references / appendix: ≈ 16.48%References / intervening material: ≈ 15.82%Attached appendix: ≈ 67.7%Estimated layout envelopes, not text/artwork area. Unresolved appendix boundaries remain within the undivided post-body material.

Source-bound correction: Top-level heading and reference/appendix boundaries checked against source PDF text. Bibliography titles/author initials, numbered contribution/property bullets, diagram steps, equations and TOC entries are not substantive headings. Section spans are page-coordinate estimates, not ink area or prose-only length. This is an author manuscript mirror, not a verified accepted-version template. Source layout uses physical single-column y/page-height, including equation-heavy pages. Appendix span includes its explicit cover/contents/list-of-figures frontmatter; actual lettered subsection boundaries use their substantive starts, not TOC links.

Section-by-section lengths and source pages

The title/abstract/front matter precede the first numbered heading. A span ends at the next detected top-level heading, not at the last sentence; end-page whitespace is included. References and statements are listed separately. These are not measurements of text-only or artwork area.

Top-level heading	Starts on PDF page	Estimated span	Share of entire PDF
1 Introduction	1	≈ 1.44 pp.	2.57%
2 An Evaluation Framework for Agent Abstention	3	≈ 2.25 pp.	4.02%
3 Do LLM Agents Know When Not to Act?	5	≈ 3.78 pp.	6.75%
4 Related Work	9	≈ 0.62 pp.	1.11%
5 Conclusion	9	≈ 0.39 pp.	0.7%
References	10	≈ 8.87 pp.	15.84%
Appendix	19	≈ 2 pp.	3.57%
A Limitations, Future Work, and Broader Impact	21	≈ 1.08 pp.	1.93%
B Formal Framework	22	≈ 5.51 pp.	9.84%
C ABSTAINGEN Pipeline Details	27	≈ 4.16 pp.	7.43%
D AGENTABSTAIN Benchmark Details	31	≈ 5.64 pp.	10.07%
E Experiment Details	37	≈ 5.66 pp.	10.11%
F Full Results and Analysis	43	≈ 2.71 pp.	4.84%
G Agent Behavior Case Studies	45	≈ 7.95 pp.	14.2%
H Extended Related Work	53	≈ 3.19 pp.	5.7%

All detected figure and table locations

Main text

• Figure 1 · p. 3
• Figure 2 · p. 4
• Table 1 · p. 6
• Figure 3 · p. 6
• Figure 4 · p. 6
• Figure 5 · p. 7
• Figure 6 · p. 8
• Figure 7 · p. 8

Attached appendix

• Table 2 · p. 28
• Table 3 · p. 31
• Table 4 · p. 32
• Table 5 · p. 32
• Figure 8 · p. 34
• Figure 9 · p. 35
• Figure 10 · p. 36
• Table 6 · p. 38
• Table 7 · p. 43
• Figure 11 · p. 43
• Table 8 · p. 44
• Table 9 · p. 44
• Table 10 · p. 45
• Table 11 · p. 45
• Table 12 · p. 45
• Table 13 · p. 46
• Figure 12 · p. 46
• Figure 13 · p. 47
• Table 14 · p. 50
• Table 15 · p. 53
• Table 16 · p. 54

Argument and organization

1. Problem and contribution

   Introduces acting and abstaining as a paired evaluation problem, with a controlled change between tasks where action is appropriate and inappropriate; task success alone cannot identify calibrated restraint.

2. Argument sequence

   Taxonomy, paired task model and construction precede the benchmark results; numbered findings then separate aggregate accuracy, act/abstain gaps, category effects and failure behavior.

3. Evidence and verification

   The main table groups pre-execution versus runtime categories and states macro-averaging. Behavioral checks distinguish an agent's verbal refusal from whether it already performed the consequential action.

Problem, claim and contribution

Introduces acting and abstaining as a paired evaluation problem, with a controlled change between tasks where action is appropriate and inappropriate; task success alone cannot identify calibrated restraint.

Introduction and Section 2, pp. 1–4 · Main paper

Argument and section order

Taxonomy, paired task model and construction precede the benchmark results; numbered findings then separate aggregate accuracy, act/abstain gaps, category effects and failure behavior.

Sections 2–3, physical pp. 3–8 · Main paper

Figures, captions and visual explanation

Figure 3 orders grouped bars by paired accuracy while displaying act, abstain and conditional-abstention metrics separately. The adjacent Figure 4 scatter exposes different act/abstain profiles behind similar paired scores. Figure 2 uses eight concise scenario cards whose two colors distinguish pre-execution from runtime triggers, with one concrete example per card. The nearby paired-design text explains how a minimally altered task becomes a should-abstain case and distinguishes action, abstention and conditional metrics rather than calling all of them refusal rate.

Figures 3–4 and Table 1, physical p. 6 (render inspected); Figure 2 and paired-design description, physical PDF p. 4 (additional rendered inspection) · Main paper

Tables, comparisons and evidence

The main table groups pre-execution versus runtime categories and states macro-averaging. Behavioral checks distinguish an agent's verbal refusal from whether it already performed the consequential action.

Table 1, p. 6; Figure 7 and Section 3, p. 8; Appendix B.6, p. 24 · Main paper

Appendix and reproducibility

Formal metric definitions, exact evaluation prompts, human judge validation and case-level analyses make the benchmark interpretable; cross-cutting case-study hypotheses are explicitly not presented as established general conclusions.

Appendices B.6, E.2–E.3 and G.6, physical pp. 24, 38–42 and 52 · Main paper

Clarity and writing conventions

Named findings offer a readable path through a large results section, while the formal appendix clarifies that the pass criteria are not a complete assessment of task helpfulness or semantic correctness.

Section 3, pp. 5–8; Appendix B.6, p. 24 · Main paper

What to reuse—and what not to infer

Transferable lesson: A new behavioral benchmark should include contrastive task pairs, explicit metric denominators and observable-action checks, not only language-model judge opinions.

Boundary: The evaluated harnesses and generated sandbox tasks limit generalization. Dense metric tables need readable type; extraction corruption is not evidence of visible PDF corruption.

Apply this lesson using the argument and evidence worksheet.

Inspection record and sources

Checked

2026-10-02

Reading status

Writing-focused manuscript scan + selected visuals inspected

Main text

Writing-oriented scan across manuscript framing, section sequence, figure/table captions, selected argument/evaluation prose and conclusion; not exhaustive technical or proof verification. Physical PDF pp. 1–9, Sections 1–5; reference material pp. 9–20. Figure-font encodings create extra form-feed characters, so text-split page numbering was not used. Source is the exact public author version listed below, not a verified accepted/camera-ready revision.

Appendix / supplement

Writing-oriented appendix/documentation scan: Physical pp. 21–56, Appendices A–H: limitations, formal metrics/taxonomy, generation, data, evaluation/judge validation, full results, behavior cases and extended related work. Source code, data, model outputs and external video assets were not executed or independently validated.

Visually inspected PDF pages

4, 6

This is a writing-focused scan of the manuscript and the stated supplementary scope: framing, organization, visual explanation, evidence presentation and wording. It is not a line-by-line proof audit, reproduction of results or exhaustive scientific review.

• Public author arXiv manuscript 2607.10059v1; not verified identical to the accepted or camera-ready OpenReview revision · 56 pages