← 研踪 PaperTrailACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-long.1711 · 记录 #1
Action Boundary Blindness: When LLM Agents Cannot Tell Where One Action Ends and Another Begins
来源日期（仅到月份） 2026-07
来源记录日期 2026-07
雷达观测 2026-11-01 21:50
摘要
Large language model (LLM) agents excel at multi-step tasks yet frequently exhibit Action Boundary Blindness—the inability to correctly determine action granularity, scope, and completeness. Grounded in Event Segmentation Theory from cognitive science, we formalize three violation types: granularity confusion, scope creep, and boundary ambiguity. We propose four automatic metrics—Action Boundary Score (ABS), Granularity Alignment Rate (GAR), Scope Violation Rate (SVR), and Boundary-Aware Success Rate (BASR)—requiring no human annotation. Experiments on 1,655 tasks across six benchmarks (\tau-bench, WebArena, ALFWorld, TheAgentCompany, OSWorld) with seven LLMs reveal that: (1) the best model achieves only 0.424 ABS; (2) using a multi-label attribution framework validated by inter-annotator agreement (\kappa = 0.78), boundary blindness is the primary failure mode in 37.2% of failures (25.8% as sole cause; 55.9% total involvement including contributing factors); (3) under-action dominates at 48.4%; (4) BASR is consistently \sim4 points lower than traditional success rate, exposing “lucky successes.” Critically, Explicit Boundary Prompting (EBP) improves ABS by 0.08–0.13 across all models, demonstrating that boundary blindness is better characterized as an elicitation gap rather than a fundamental capability limitation—LLMs possess latent boundary perception not activated by default. This finding has implications for alignment and instruction tuning. We validate metrics through state-based cross-validation and human audit, estimating \sim22% false positive rate from valid alternative paths, with model rankings remaining stable (Spearman \rho = 1.0).
论文发现出处
这些页面提供论文线索，不代表同行评审或质量认证。
观测到的版本
平台记录号代表本站观测到的元数据变化，不是作者修订号。来源日期仅到月份或年份时，按该月或该年首日存档。
记录 #1 · 2026-07 · 最新观测版本
Action Boundary Blindness: When LLM Agents Cannot Tell Where One Action Ends and Another Begins
Large language model (LLM) agents excel at multi-step tasks yet frequently exhibit Action Boundary Blindness—the inability to correctly determine action granularity, scope, and completeness. Grounded in Event Segmentation Theory from cognitive science, we formalize three violation types: granularity confusion, scope creep, and boundary ambiguity. We propose four automatic metrics—Action Boundary Score (ABS), Granularity Alignment Rate (GAR), Scope Violation Rate (SVR), and Boundary-Aware Success Rate (BASR)—requiring no human annotation. Experiments on 1,655 tasks across six benchmarks (\tau-bench, WebArena, ALFWorld, TheAgentCompany, OSWorld) with seven LLMs reveal that: (1) the best model achieves only 0.424 ABS; (2) using a multi-label attribution framework validated by inter-annotator agreement (\kappa = 0.78), boundary blindness is the primary failure mode in 37.2% of failures (25.8% as sole cause; 55.9% total involvement including contributing factors); (3) under-action dominates at 48.4%; (4) BASR is consistently \sim4 points lower than traditional success rate, exposing “lucky successes.” Critically, Explicit Boundary Prompting (EBP) improves ABS by 0.08–0.13 across all models, demonstrating that boundary blindness is better characterized as an elicitation gap rather than a fundamental capability limitation—LLMs possess latent boundary perception not activated by default. This finding has implications for alignment and instruction tuning. We validate metrics through state-based cross-validation and human audit, estimating \sim22% false positive rate from valid alternative paths, with model rankings remaining stable (Spearman \rho = 1.0).
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗