SPIEval: Evaluating Large Language Models as Mobile Assistants over Scattered Personal Information
Abstract
Domain fit: AI-core · Core AI workload signals detected from paper context and implementation/artifact evidence.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as mobile assistants, where a key challenge is leveraging personal information scattered across multiple applications (apps) to complete user instructions. However, due to the lack of dedicated benchmarks, their capabilities remain poorly understood. To address this gap, we introduce SPIEval, a human-curated benchmark grounded in five cognitive capabilities (i.e., reasoning, disambiguation, integration, preference inference, and multi-intent decomposition). SPIEval comprises 250 tasks spanning 4,335 personal records distributed across 10 apps and supports multi-turn interaction through 21 tools. Analysis shows that the benchmark exhibits diverse scenarios, challenging tasks, scattered information, controllable environments, and verifiable outcomes. We evaluate nine representative LLMs and find substantial room for improvement. The best-performing model, GPT-5.5 (xhigh), achieves only 57.3% accuracy, while the weakest achieves just 16.4%. Further analysis reveals that 79% of failures stem from inaccurate information localization, as LLMs often commit to plausible but incorrect information instead of continuing retrieval for verification. We also find that fewer than 2% of retrieval actions employ advanced search methods and observe substantial variation in search efficiency across models. These findings expose fundamental limitations of current LLM-based mobile assistants and motivate future research in this direction. Data and code are available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/Junjie-Ye/SPIEval.
Results and benchmarks
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as mobile assistants, where a key challenge is leveraging personal information scattered across multiple applications (apps) to complete user instructions.
Benchmark evidence is limited
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, 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.
- Use the paper-linked Hugging Face release as the starting artifact, then reconstruct training and evaluation settings from the paper.
- 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
No direct maintained repository implementation was found, but paper-linked Hugging Face artifacts are available.
- Estimate assumes artifact-level reproduction; full training reproduction may require additional paper details.
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.
Validation caveat
Hugging Face artifacts
Models
No trustworthy models matches right now.
Search models on Hugging FaceDatasets
Spaces
No trustworthy spaces matches right now.
Search spaces on Hugging FaceResearch context
Tasks
Instruction tuning, Retrieval / indexing
Methods
Transformer, Retrieval-augmented generation
Domains
Natural Language Processing, Large Language Models, Information Retrieval
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.