ProCompNav: Proactive Instance Navigation with Comparative Judgment for Ambiguous User Queries
Abstract
Domain fit: AI-adjacent · Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
Natural-language instance navigation becomes challenging when the initial user request does not uniquely specify the target instance. A practical agent should reduce the user's burden by actively asking only the information needed to distinguish the target from similar distractors, rather than requiring a detailed description upfront. Existing approaches often fall short of this goal by mistaking distractors that strongly match the accumulated information about the target provided by the user. As a result, despite the dialogue, the agent may still fail to distinguish the target from distractors, leading to premature decisions and lengthy user responses. We propose Proactive Instance Navigation with Comparative Judgment (ProCompNav), a two-stage framework that first constructs a candidate pool and then identifies the target through Recursive Comparative Judgment (RCJ). RCJ iteratively narrows the pool by selecting an attribute-value pair that divides the candidates, asking the user a binary question, and removing inconsistent candidates, without requiring an attribute unique to the target. On CoIN-Bench, ProCompNav outperforms the evaluated baselines in Success Rate while substantially reducing Response Length. On the non-interactive TextNav benchmark, ProCompNav achieves the highest Success Rate. Two human studies further show that participants prefer ProCompNav's interaction strategies.
Results and benchmarks
Natural-language instance navigation becomes challenging when the initial user request does not uniquely specify the target instance.
| Task | Dataset | Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic tool use | ProCompNav | Gemma-3-12B. | 20.9 | paper-derived |
Audit each benchmark finding before selecting an implementation path. Evidence refs map to the disclosure below.
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 95/100, grounding 68/100, status medium.
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.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Time to first repro: a few days
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Reproduction readiness
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.
Models
Datasets
Spaces
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Tasks
Agentic tool use
Methods
Agentic systems
Domains
AI Agents
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXJump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.