Ask Early, Ask Late, Ask Right: When Does Clarification Timing Matter for Long-Horizon Agents?
Anmol Gulati, Hariom Gupta, Elias Lumer, Sahil Sen, Vamse Kumar Subbiah

TL;DR
This study investigates when clarification should be sought during long-horizon AI tasks, revealing that the optimal timing varies by information type and task, with implications for designing better clarification policies.
Contribution
It introduces a framework to measure clarification value over time and provides empirical insights into optimal clarification timing for complex AI workflows.
Findings
Goal clarification loses value after 10% of execution
Input clarification retains value through roughly 50% of execution
Most models do not ask within the empirically optimal window
Abstract
Long-horizon AI agents execute complex workflows spanning hundreds of sequential actions, yet a single wrong assumption early on can cascade into irreversible errors. When instructions are incomplete, the agent must decide not only whether to ask for clarification but when, and no prior work measures how clarification value changes over the course of execution. We introduce a forced-injection framework that provides ground-truth clarifications at controlled points in the agent's trajectory across four information dimensions (goal, input, constraint, context), three agent benchmarks, and four frontier models (three per benchmark; one on a single benchmark only; 84 task variants; 6,000+ runs). Counter to the common intuition that "earlier is always better," we find that the value of clarification depends sharply on what information is missing: goal clarification loses nearly all value…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
