Can a sentence-completeness cue let an always-on assistant stop waiting so long before it replies?

What it found

A stylised signal-detection model: the endpointer waits a short hangover Hs after a sentence the cue calls complete and a longer Hl otherwise. With medium pauses (2 per turn, median 250 ms, assumed) and a 10% cut-off budget, a fixed hangover is 913 ms; a cue of quality d = 2 cuts the mean wait to 574 ms if no pause sits at a complete point, but only to 837 ms if half of them do, because the cue is blind to those. With long or widely spread pauses, where a fixed hangover is 1.9 to 2.6 s at a 5% budget, d = 3 gives 571 to 873 ms. The cue, the pause model and the share of clause-boundary pauses are assumed, not measured; only the 682 ms reply chain is measured. Closed forms agree with a Monte Carlo check.

A figure from its own output

Paper, code and results

• README and method
• Experiments and results
• Code
• Tests

More in Ambient AI assistant

• When is a second or third earbud tone worth it before a glance?How many repeated earbud tones before a glance are worth their annoyance, by urgency, tone gap and masking, in the ambient-urgency utility model (stylised)
• How accurate must an always-on assistant's urgency label be before acting on it beats ignoring it?How accurate an urgency label must be before an always-on assistant should act on it: naive, Bayesian and label-ignoring policies in the ambient-urgency utility model (stylised)
• How many audited messages does an always-on assistant need before it can trust a noisy urgency label?How many audited messages an assistant needs to estimate a noisy urgency label's confusion matrix and prior well enough to act on it: about 50 at moderate accuracy, with smoothing helping at tiny audit sets (stylised)
• What does a noisy auditor do to an assistant that learns its urgency label’s reliability from audits?What a noisy human auditor does to an assistant that learns its urgency label's reliability from audits: taking audit labels as truth biases the estimate and loses 8% to 69% of the label's gain at a 0.9 to 0.7 auditor, and correcting for a known auditor accuracy recovers it (stylised)
• How many gold-labelled audits replace noisy ones when the auditor’s accuracy is unknown?How many gold-labelled audits replace noisy ones when the auditor's accuracy is unknown: 25 gold audits match 1000 noisy ones read as truth, and a joint EM using 10 gold plus 200 noisy audits nearly reaches the true-parameter policy (stylised)
• How should a fixed audit budget be split between gold-labelled and noisy audits?How to split a fixed audit budget between gold and noisy audits when gold costs 3 to 30 times more: all-noisy is worst or near-worst in all 12 cells, 25% on gold with a joint EM fit is within 0.0009 of the best, and all-gold loses when gold is expensive (stylised)

All 46 Ambient AI assistant projects →

Other research topics

Proper scoring & elicitation28Effort & peer prediction9Verification games & slashing19Detection & tolerances14Markets as routers13Prediction-market design9Paying contributors8Decentralised training systems23Digital twins & sim-to-real164LLM chip design loops40Robot manufacturing loops53Ambient AI assistant46Self-replicating manufacturing34Simulation-first design64Engineered clothing45Task-specific AI accelerators40Algorithmic chip-design loops42Open-source purpose-built robots44The software-engineering loop43Adversarial human imitation41Open-source residential construction41Autonomous multi-angle capture34Sensing, imaging and 3D31Energy supply and dense energy storage39Robot societies among people31Agentic co-design of low-cost robots27Laundry-hanging robots25Machine learning on qualitative data23Robots on the building site27Civilizations & group psychology1History & human sciences1

Produced with AI assistance (Claude). Results are from the code in this repository and are simulated or stylised unless the abstract says otherwise; nothing here implies affiliation with or endorsement by any lab, researcher or company cited. MIT licensed.