A long-standing goal of the research community is to develop highly interactive LLM-based dialogue agents. Recent research focuses on optimizing policies based on fixed offline logs (Static Context RL) or using a prompt-based simulator (Interactive RL). In this work, we theoretically show that both paradigms are fundamentally limited by context distribution shift--a mismatch between dialogue histories observed during training and those encountered in real conversations. This shift compounds quadratically over turns and severely degrades dialogue quality. Specifically, we attribute this shift to two distinct sources: (i) policy-induced shift, arising from training on static histories rather than self-generated trajectories; and (ii) simulator-induced shift, stemming from discrepancies between simulated and real human behaviors. To address these challenges, we propose Calibrated Interactive RL, a unified framework that couples interactive RL with simulator alignment. By aligning the simulator with human interaction patterns, our approach reduces the sim-to-real gap and mitigates compounding distribution shifts. Experiments across multiple dialogue tasks confirm our theoretical analysis: (i) Interactive RL significantly outperforms the Static Context baseline by mitigating policy distribution shift; and (ii) calibrating simulators with our alignment method further bridges the sim-to-real gap, yielding state-of-the-art downstream performance.
Social intelligence enables agents to read social context, infer intent, and adapt over sustained dialogue. As language models become autonomous collaborators, it is central to building effective and trustworthy human-AI interaction. Existing reinforcement learning methods optimize single-turn utterances and sparse outcome rewards, producing short-sighted policies that struggle to manage goal-relationship tensions across multi-turn interactions. We propose SocialRL, a multi-turn reinforcement learning framework addressing both challenges. First, we apply multi-turn reinforcement learning using PPO that propagates delayed outcome rewards back to each turn, enabling long-horizon planning. Second, we design six process reward dimensions capturing the goal-relationship trade-off, including goal advancement, relational attunement, contextual coherence, etc. A reward model dynamically generates fine-grained scoring criteria for each dimension, while a stage-aware weight schedule prioritizes relationship-building in early turns, goal advancement mid-way, and balanced closure late. Across multiple social-dialogue benchmarks, SocialRL improves Goal Achievement by an average of 9.2 percentage points over the corresponding Base models. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of SocialRL across synthetic and real social scenes, as well as standard and challenging social scenarios.
Multi-agent reinforcement learning for human-AI interaction typically relies on a single large language model to simulate user behavior. We show that this approach systematically fails to generalize, and trace the failure to simulator collapse: because the simulator LLM is mode-collapsed, an LLM policy trained against it overfits to narrow strategies that exploit the simulator's dominant mode, and such a policy transfers poorly to unseen simulators and real users. We formalize this collapse theoretically and propose two complementary solutions, one at inference time and one at training time. The inference-time solution, Verbalized Sampling, broadens the simulator's behavior by sampling from a verbalized response distribution, reducing mode collapse. The training-time solution, Co-Training, jointly optimizes the policy against a population of trainable simulators, preventing it from overfitting to any single simulator's mode. We validate both solutions on three multi-turn benchmarks: Persuasion for Good, τ2-bench, and CooperBench. Verbalized Sampling improves held-out success by up to 9% over single-simulator RL, and Co-Training pushes gains further to 14%; the human study shows similar gain on real users. Both solutions preserve the policy diversity that collapses under single-simulator RL. To support further work in this direction, we release SCOPE, an open-source framework for Population Co-Training multi-agent RL. More broadly, our results suggest that the diversity of the training environment, not only the policy, is critical to the generalization of multi-turn RL to real-world deployment.
Reinforcement learning (RL) has achieved strong results in improving large language models (LLMs) on tasks with stationary, verifiable rewards, such as mathematical reasoning and code execution. In these settings, the environment follows fixed rules and does not adapt strategically to the agent. Strategic dialogue differs in this respect: the environment is another agent that adapts to the policy, and success depends on the interaction between the two sides. Despite this interactive nature, current RL approaches typically train a target agent against a fixed counterpart or simulator. We find that this training paradigm encourages the policy to exploit counterpart-specific regularities rather than learn strategies that generalize across counterparts. We call this problem the static-counterpart mismatch, which we quantify directly in our experiments. To address it, we propose Isolated Bilateral Reinforcement Learning (IB-RL), in which the two roles coevolve through joint rollouts while each role optimizes its own reward through fully independent advantages, action masks, and update paths. We evaluate frozen policies against fully independent held-out counterparts in both domains. On Vehicle TeleSales, IB-RL achieves 89.6% Success@1, compared to 84.6% for the best unilateral RL baseline. On Deal-or-NoDeal, it reaches 98.4% agreement against DeepSeek V4 Pro, compared to 86.4% for the best unilateral baseline. These results indicate that jointly training both roles with strict peragent isolation produces policies that generalize more effectively to unseen counterparts.