Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

PACE: Towards Surfacing Hidden Conflicts in User Requests

Yoojin Kim, Jihyoung Jang, Hyounghun KimPublished Sep 3, 2026
arXiv PDF
Researcher verdict
Context only
Use as context only
Benchmark evidence
Thin evidence
Verify before relying
Time to first repro
A few days
Plan setup time
Risk flags
2
Review before use

Abstract

Domain fit: AI-adjacent

Personalized assistants should not only comply with user requests but also assess whether those requests are appropriate given the user's current circumstances. However, prior work has primarily focused on accurately executing requests, overlooking the need for assistants to account for context and engage in conflict-based refusal. Furthermore, while existing work on conflict or safety detection relies on explicitly provided factors, real-world scenarios often involve implicit factors that must be retrieved from a knowledge base (KB). To this end, we introduce Personalized Assistants for Conflict Evaluation (PACE), a dataset for evaluating whether models can identify latent constraints, expressed as egocentric knowledge or events, that render seemingly reasonable user requests inappropriate. PACE pairs user requests grounded in well-defined personas with egocentric KB facts, requiring models to integrate contextual evidence to determine whether a request is conflicting. This implicit retrieval setting hinders the direct association between user requests and conflict-inducing knowledge, making it difficult for existing models to identify relevant user-specific facts. To address this challenge, we further propose PaceMaker, a multi-agent framework in which specialized agents coordinate across query reformulation, multi-hop graph traversal, and conflict-aware filtering to retrieve contextually decisive evidence. Experiments on PACE evaluate both evidence retrieval quality and conflict decision accuracy, showing that PaceMaker consistently outperforms existing approaches.

Results and benchmarks

Personalized assistants should not only comply with user requests but also assess whether those requests are appropriate given the user's current circumstances.
Task Dataset Metric Value Source
Instruction tuning w/o Planning Recall@5 32.00 paper-derived
Instruction tuning w/o Traversal Recall@5 22.48 paper-derived
Instruction tuning w/o Selection Recall@5 32.61 paper-derived
Instruction tuning HippoRAG 2 Recall@5 20.15 paper-derived

Audit each benchmark finding before selecting an implementation path. Evidence refs map to the disclosure below.

Implementation

No direct implementation yet

Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.

Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.

Implementation evidence summary
Confidence: low

Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.

Reproduction risks
  • Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow

Reproduction readiness

Time to first repro: days
Last checked: Sep 6, 2026

No repo

No verified implementation available

  • No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.

Hardware requirements

  • Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.

Hugging Face artifacts

No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.

Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.

Research context

Tasks

Instruction tuning, Agentic tool use, Retrieval / indexing

Methods

Retrieval-augmented generation

Domains

AI Agents, Information Retrieval

Evaluation and human feedback data

Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.

Open in HFEPX
Explore similar papers