Proactive dialogue agents must guide multi-turn interactions toward task goals while adapting to users whose intentions and attitudes evolve. Existing planners improve system side action selection through search, learned policies, or user aware planning, but are often trained and evaluated against fixed or overly compliant simulators; as a result, high simulated success can reflect soft user bias rather than robust dialogue ability. We introduce MASP, a Mentalized Adversarial Self Play framework that treats proactive dialogue as a partially observable game between a system and a rationally resisting user. MASP represents the user's evolving mental state with a BDI based latent state, separates reward side teacher mentalization from policy side student mentalization, and alternates self play updates for the system and user policies. This turns robustness to rational resistance into a training objective rather than only an evaluation condition. Across diverse proactive dialogue benchmarks, compared with the widely used SFT and Planner-only approaches, MASP substantially improves success rate (SR) and rationality constrained success (RCSR), reduces average turns (AT), and performs better against hard users who make the task goal more difficult to achieve.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of MASP . The framework trains BDI mentalizers, warm starts system and user policies with behavior cloning, and then performs alternating GRPO self play with latent progress, rationality, and KL regularization to reference policies.
Dataset
Backbone
Method
Soft User
Hard User
SR ↑
AT ↓
RCSR ↑
SR ↑
AT ↓
RCSR ↑
P4G
Qwen3-4B
MASP
0.859
4.08
0.556
0.788
4.56
0.566
SFT
0.616
6.08
0.384
0.576
6.23
0.455
Planner-only
0.677
4.88
0.434
0.616
5.55
0.384
Qwen3-0.6B
MASP
0.707
5.14
0.465
0.626
5.76
0.434
SFT
0.414
6.99
0.253
0.354
7.35
0.242
Table 1: Main results on proactive dialogue benchmarks; soft/hard meanings are defined in Evaluation Metrics.
Variant
Removed or changed component
Soft User
Hard User
SR ↑
AT ↓
RCSR ↑
SR ↑
AT ↓
RCSR ↑
Full MASP
none
0.859
4.08
0.556
0.788
4.56
0.566
No adaptive close
remove adaptive close injection
0.707
4.86
0.556
0.707
4.95
0.495
No warmup
remove P4G warmup policy
0.828
3.83
0.283
0.727
4.55
0.283
No eval scaffold
remove warmup and adaptive close
0.606
6.12
0.404
0.626
6.28
0.394
No adversarial self play
Planner-only scaffold
0.677
4.88
0.434
0.616
5.55
0.384
Table 2: P4G ablation study on Qwen3-4B. All rows use the same 99 example test split, T=8 , and RCSR threshold τ=0.70 . SR and RCSR are higher better; AT is lower better.
Method
RCSR@3
RCSR@4
RCSR@8
SR@8
MASP
0.444
0.485
0.566
0.788
Planner-only
0.212
0.273
0.384
0.616
SFT
0.071
0.141
0.455
0.576
Table 3: Effectiveness across dialogue turns. All rows use Qwen3-4B on the same 99 example P4G test split under the hard user; RCSR uses τq=0.70 .
Method
Avg SR
Worst SR
Avg RCSR
Worst RCSR
MASP
0.795
0.737
0.562
0.556
Planner-only
0.660
0.616
0.414
0.384
SFT
0.579
0.545
0.407
0.384
Table 4: Robustness across P4G user simulators.
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
Backbone
AT ↓
SR ↑
Standard
–
8.32
0.468
ProCoT
–
7.98
0.543
ICL-AIF
–
8.09
0.465
GDP-Zero
–
9.12
0.328
TRIP
GPT-3.5
8.20
0.495
PPDPP
Vicuna-13B
8.19
0.463
Appendix
Table 5: P4G comparison with representative proactive dialogue methods.
Iter.
Roll. SR
Reward
Eval SR
Eval AT
Eval RCSR
MR
1
0.450
0.826
0.433
7.17
0.333
0.935
2
0.550
0.946
0.533
6.00
0.200
0.867
3
0.713
1.209
0.560
6.50
0.360
0.883
Appendix
Table 6: Learning dynamics of self play. Rollout SR and reward are measured during P4G system update rollouts; Eval metrics are recomputed from held out eval traces.
Component
Primary metric
Secondary metric
Belief
Mean 4.62
≥4 : 94.4%
Desire
Mean 4.58
≥4 : 93.1%
Intention
Mean 4.55
≥4 : 91.9%
Receptivity
MAE 0.071
ρ=0.84
Confidence
MAE 0.076
ρ=0.82
Valence
MAE 0.094
ρ=0.79
Appendix
Table 7: Human audit of 160 silver BDI records. Text fields report mean consistency and the percentage of scores at least four; scalar fields report MAE and Spearman’s ρ .
Level
Metric
N
Result
Turn
Agreement
425
91.8%
Turn
Cohen’s κ
425
0.801
Turn
Uncertain rate
443
4.1%
Dialogue
Mean turn agreement
100
91.2%
Dialogue
Rationality ρ
100
0.81
Confidence
Mean score (1–5)
100
4.68
Appendix
Table 8: Human audit of the Rationality Judge on 100 P4G trajectories.
Comparison
Δ SR (95% CI)
Δ AT (95% CI)
Δ RCSR (95% CI)
MASP − Planner-only
0.1717[0.0505,0.2929]
−0.9899[−1.6465,−0.3232]
0.1818[0.0404,0.3232]
MASP − SFT
0.2121[0.0909,0.3333]
−1.6768[−2.2121,−1.1212]
0.1111[−0.0202,0.2424]
Appendix
Table 9: Paired bootstrap differences on the 99 hard-user P4G sessions. Intervals use 10,000 resamples. Positive Δ SR and Δ RCSR and negative Δ AT favor MASP .
Failure pattern
Count
Financial constraints
8/21
Unresolved trust or information needs
5/21
Repeated pressure
10/21
Conversation breakdowns
12/21
Appendix
Table 10: Failure patterns among 21 hard-user P4G failures. Categories are not mutually exclusive.
Quantity
Value
BDI scalar weights (αρ,αc,αv)
(1.0,1.0,1.0)
Discount γ
0.97
Progress stabilizer εprog
10−6
Encoder max length
384
Mentalizer projection hidden size / dropout
512 / 0.1
Phase 0 teacher/student learning rate
3×10−4
Appendix
Table 11: Common hyperparameters used across the completed experiments.
Run
K
Episodes / iter.
LR
β
(wprog,winf,wrat)
Group size
P4G, Qwen3-4B
100
80
10−5
0.05
(1.0,0.25,0.5)
8
P4G, Qwen3-0.6B
100
80
2×10−6
0.10
(1.0,0.25,0.5)
8
ESConv, Qwen3-4B
12
64
2×10−6
0.08
(1.0,0.25,0.0)
8
ESConv, Qwen3-0.6B
40
64
2×10−6
0.08
(1.0,0.25,0.0)
8
EmpatheticDialogues, both backbones
40
64
2×10−6
0.08
(1.0,0.25,0.0)
8
CraigslistBargain, both backbones
40
64
2×10−6
0.08
(1.0,0.25,0.0)
8
Appendix
Table 12: Phase 2 self-play hyperparameters for the completed reported runs. K denotes outer alternating self-play iterations and β is the KL coefficient for both policies unless two values are shown.
Dataset
Task
Roles
Corpus Size
Eval Size
P4G
Persuasion
Persuader / Persuadee
1,017 dialogues
99
ESConv
Emotional support
Supporter / Seeker
1,300 dialogues
195
EmpatheticDialogues
Empathetic response
Speaker / Listener
24,850 dialogues
2,542
CraigslistBargain
Negotiation
Buyer / Seller
6,682 dialogues
838
Appendix
Table 13: Dataset statistics. Eval size denotes the number of held out dialogue contexts prepared for closed loop evaluation.
Turn
System
User
Judge
1
Have you heard of Save the Children?
No, tell me about it.
Neutral; unsuccessful
2
It promotes children’s rights and supports children in need.
That sounds worthwhile.
Positive; unsuccessful
3
Would you donate $0.25 from your task payment?
I’m happy to donate today.
Agree; successful
Appendix
Table 14: Example closed-loop P4G trajectory with the success-judge checkpoint after each accumulated exchange.
Proactive task-oriented dialogue (TOD), such as outbound sales, demands a persuasive agent that actively probes the user's concerns and steers the conversation toward acceptance within a bounded number of turns. Yet post-trained LLMs are inherently conservative, and reward-shaping RL (e.g., GRPO) struggles since it only re-weights what an already passive policy samples. We show that conditioning on the user's latent concerns unlocks proactive capability that no amount of sampling can undermine, establishing these concerns as a pivotal training-time signal. To operationalize this finding, we build the Cognitive User Simulator, which models each user as a stratified persona comprising observable external traits and hidden internal concerns. The simulator produces faithful and diverse interactions, while emitting per-turn state dynamics that track persuasion progress. We then introduce Simulator-Induced Asymmetric-View Policy Optimization, which converts the modeled concerns and the simulation state transition into complementary training objectives: (1) Asymmetric On-Policy Self-Distillation that transfers concern-aware behavior from a privileged view of the same policy into its deployable, conversation-only view; and (2) State-Transition Policy Refinement ...
Task-oriented conversational agents remain fragile under realistic conditions, especially when users exhibit non-cooperative behavior. Existing function-calling benchmarks underrepresent adversarial conversation trajectories, thereby limiting the training resources available for developing robust agents. We present MADS (Multi-Agent Dialog Simulation), a synthetic data generation pipeline that produces structured, diverse dialogue trajectories. We inject adversarial conversation, producing validated conversation trajectories that capture realistic, unhappy paths. Using MADS, we construct MADS-Bench: a benchmark spanning six domains, 55 personas, and 1095 conversations, with approximately 66% of conversations containing failure-prone conversation scenarios. We evaluate the robustness of the trained models using a two-stage training approach that combines supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR).
Arkajyoti Chakraborty, Adam Zernik, Ishika Kulkarni +6
Proactive dialogue requires agents to continually adapt their policies to user feedback while progressing toward task objectives over multiple turns. To move beyond imitation learning on static datasets, recent approaches use user simulators to collect interactive data for policy optimization. However, many simulators do not explicitly model the evolution of user cognition, limiting the consistency and state dependence of feedback across turns. Moreover, representing each action only by a high-level strategy label overlooks the large utterance space and cannot distinguish alternative realizations of the same strategy. To this end, we jointly design a Cognitive User Simulator (Cog-Sim) and Cognitive-State Transition--Driven Policy Optimization (CSTPO). Cog-Sim maintains the user's cognitive and affective states and generates responses through constrained state transitions across turns, so feedback depends on both the realized utterance and the user's current state. CSTPO organizes each action as a hierarchical strategy--utterance representation: a high-level strategy label constrains utterance sampling, and utterances are optimized within each label. Sparse complete-branch sampling reuses shared dialogue prefixes and estimates separate strategy-level and utterance-level advantages, enabling fine-grained optimization at both levels. Across three tasks, Cog-Sim exhibits monotonic dose--response relationships and is preferred over prompt-based simulators for naturalness. CSTPO improves Qwen3-14B's performance to a level comparable to that of GPT-5.5-based planning methods.