Multimodal Rapport Estimation in Real-World HRI

Human-robot interaction (HRI) evaluation relies almost exclusively on human-completed questionnaires, leaving the robot's perspective unexamined. We propose an inverted evaluation, in which LLM-powered robots complete the same standardized instruments from their own perspective, and test whether these ratings agree with human ground truth. In Study1, five LLMs completed HRI-CUES, Godspeed, and RoSAS questionnaires for 25interactions ($N = 1{,}522$ evaluations) from the HRI-CUES dataset. LLMs achieved moderate-to-strong agreement on engagement dimensions (satisfaction $r$ up to $.65$ and enjoyment $r$ up to $.72$) with excellent test-retest reliability (ICC $\geq .82$), but systematically inverted the comfort/strangeness dimension ($r = -.44$ to $-.67$, all $p < .05$), conflating engagement with comfort. In Study2, a Nao robot running ClaudeSonnet~4.5 replicated these patterns in live interactions ($N = 4$), including real-time turn-by-turn assessment. The strangeness failure persisted across five models, synthetic controls, and embodied deployment for two participants. We argue that current LLM-based robots lack access to the internal affective states needed to assess constructs like strangeness, and that inverted evaluation requires supplementary modalities (e.g., physiological signals, gaze, proxemics) to move beyond behavioral proxies. These findings establish boundary conditions for using LLMs as interaction evaluators in HRI.

Multimodal Role-Playing Agents (MRPAs) are attracting increasing attention due to their ability to deliver more immersive multimodal emotional interactions. However, existing studies still rely on pure textual benchmarks to evaluate the text responses of MRPAs, while delegating the assessment of their multimodal expressions solely to modality-synthesis metrics. This evaluation paradigm, on the one hand, entangles semantic assessment with modality generation, leading to ambiguous error attribution, and on the other hand remains constrained by the heavy reliance on human judgment. To this end, we propose MERRY, a semantically decoupled evaluation framework for assessing Multimodal Emotional and Role consistencies of Role-playing agents. This framework introduce five refined metrics for EC and three for RC. Notably, we transform the traditional subjective scoring approach into a novel bidirectional-evidence-finding task, significantly improving the human agreement of LLM-as-Judge evaluations. Based on MERRY, we conduct extensive evaluations. Our empirical results primarily reveal that: (1) Training on synthetic datasets tends to reduce emotional consistency, whereas training on real-world datasets improves it; (2) Existing models suffer from emotional templatization and simplification, exhibiting positive-bias and performance bottleneck in fine-grained negative emotions; (3) Simple prompting method strengthens the weak models but constrains the strong ones, while simple fine-tuning method suffers from poor role generalization. Codes and dataset are available.

Role-playing agents (RPAs) have become one of the most important consumer applications of large language models. Users engage in multi-turn conversations with RPAs for experiences such as emotional comfort, making reliable evaluation essential for measuring capability, comparing systems, and guiding further improvement. Existing benchmarks, however, typically require an RPA to continue a fixed dialogue history and then evaluate the continuation using a fixed rubric detached from the user. We identify and empirically demonstrate two limitations of this design. First, an RPA's output is shaped by the preceding dialogue history, preventing a scientifically grounded assessment of its role-playing ability in real multi-turn settings. Second, user experience varies substantially across individuals, and conventional fixed rubrics need not align with user satisfaction. We therefore introduce PALATE (Person-Aligned LLM-Simulated-User Assessment with Tailored Evaluation), a scalable RPA benchmark built on user simulators. PALATE is accompanied by a pool of 300 character profiles. Its main evaluation trains five per-user simulators and lets them engage candidate RPAs in free-form, multi-turn conversations over a pre-frozen panel of character profiles. Alongside a general quality rubric, we construct personalized rubrics to measure user satisfaction; on held-out annotated data, the personalized rubrics show higher agreement with human judgments than the general rubric. In the main evaluation of 16 candidates, PALATE separately characterizes generic turn quality, long-horizon session capability, and per-user experience on multi-turn trajectories co-constructed by each candidate. It thereby produces interpretable evaluations of specific user-RPA pairs rather than compressing systems into a single user-independent ranking.