Conversational Quality

A central concern with language models is sycophancy: their tendency to defer to users' views at the expense of independent substantive judgment. In parallel, work on social sycophancy has focused on behaviors such as validation and positivity that may signal inappropriate deference. Yet the markers of social sycophancy are also characteristic of conversational receptiveness, a construct from social psychology shown to improve interactions across disagreement. We argue that this overlap creates a construct-validity problem for social sycophancy evaluations. Using a popular moral-advice dataset, we find that responses classified as more socially sycophantic are also more receptive. Further, increasing the receptiveness of human-written responses---while preserving their substantive conclusions---causes them to be classified as more socially sycophantic. This tight coupling raises the possibility that social sycophancy evaluations inadvertently penalize desirable behavior. In a preregistered experiment comparing substantively equivalent responses, participants prefer the more receptive responses, expect users to be more likely to listen to them, and are more willing to seek advice from their authors. The same overall pattern persists even among participants who believe the original question asker is in the wrong. Finally, we introduce a simple approach that substantially increases receptiveness without increasing substantive deference, demonstrating that conversational receptiveness and substantive independence can be achieved together.

Understanding how psychiatric patients subjectively experienced a clinical conversation is important for feedback and alliance-related process monitoring. While interviewers form post-session judgments about patient experience, these judgments do not always match patients' self-reports. Automatic approaches for predicting perceived interaction quality from conversation have been proposed, but it remains unclear whether such approaches can complement human judgment rather than simply replicate it. To address this gap, we evaluate a clinician-support framework in which post-session interviewer ratings are combined with automatic language-based predictions to estimate patient-reported interaction quality in free clinical interviews. We assess this integration across multiple standard model types, including Ridge, SVR, MLP, GRU, and BiLSTM, all trained on sentence embeddings extracted from dyadic transcripts of 107 free conversations between psychiatric patients and interviewers. Our results show that combining interviewer judgments with model predictions through simple averaging yields the strongest overall performance. The interviewer-only baseline reached a Pearson correlation of 0.365. Among fully automatic models, Ridge achieved the strongest Pearson correlation (r = 0.286), while BiLSTM achieved r = 0.270. The strongest result was obtained by BiLSTM interviewer integration (r = 0.403). Our findings suggest that automatic language analysis and interviewer judgment capture complementary aspects of patient experience and that their combination provides a more accurate approximation of the patient's own report than either source alone.

Evaluating conversational voice agents at scale re- quires reliable assessment methods that capture both observ- able interaction quality and the contextual judgment typically provided by human evaluators. We investigate LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation by comparing human judgments with GPT-4.1 and GPT-5 on telecom and retail voice-agent conversations, across conversational quality and safety dimensions. The same interac- tions are scored under three evaluation configurations, p0, p1, and p2, to test whether automated judgments are sensitive to the evaluation setup and whether observed patterns generalize across configurations and judge models. Beyond aggregate agreement, we examine metric-level correlations, evaluator consistency, and systematic human-LLM disagreement to identify which conver- sational attributes can be judged reliably by automation and which remain sensitive to interpretation and context. Effective voice-agent evaluation is also shaped by pipeline-level factors such as speech generation, streaming, and error propagation across ASR, reasoning, and tool-calling stages, motivating our focus on comparing how human and LLM judges score the same interactions end to end. Our results show that LLM- based evaluation can serve as an effective component of large- scale voice-agent assessment, but that its reliability is metric- and configuration-dependent rather than uniform. This pro- vides an empirical framework for identifying which metrics suit automated evaluation and supports hybrid pipelines in which LLM judges handle scalable assessment while human evaluators remain engaged for metrics that demand contextual interpretation and higher-confidence judgment.

Terminal interfaces to conversational agents report rich internal state (listening, thinking, executing tools, awaiting input, failing) almost entirely through text, while the motion channel beside it, the one peripheral vision monitors without reading, carries a single bit: alive. We present the Signal Rail, a one-row terminal status instrument that gives that channel a grammar. Four ideas govern it: spatial semantics (input, processing, and output zones, with direction as meaning), a motion grammar (one kinetic rule per state, never color alone), determinism (frames as a pure function of explicit inputs, golden-frame testable), and honesty (no invented progress or activity). We contribute a 45-section normative specification and a reference implementation inside a working full-duplex local voice agent driven by real signals.

Many modern AI systems analyze conversational traces to infer aspects of human interaction and state, implicitly assuming that such information is recoverable from conversation. We study observability: whether a target is recoverable from conversational transcripts alone. Observability is difficult to assess because transcripts may provide only a partial view of many targets, and large-scale analysis requires model-based annotation, making true limits of the conversational signal hard to distinguish from annotator error. We therefore study clinical encounters, where patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide an external anchor for patient state, and visits follow broadly structured patterns. We study observability of patient state and conversational phase structure using 439 real-world clinical encounter transcripts spanning 134 hours, including 245 ENT transcripts paired with 273 PROM surveys. We operationalize patient state using PROM scores for voice, cough, and swallowing; phase structure using conversational phase segmentation. To make these analyses credible at scale, we use a PHI-compliant GPT-5 deployment for transcript annotation and conduct 40 hours of manual validation, reducing the risk that apparent limits of observability simply reflect annotator error. Our core finding is an observability asymmetry: phase structure is observable and useful for characterizing clinical encounter organization, while patient state is only partially observable, even in a setting designed to elicit patient symptoms and experiences, cautioning against transcript-only inference of human state.

Large language models can answer a medical question correctly and still abandon that answer when a user pushes back. We study this failure as medical sycophancy and ask when models are most likely to give in. Across five open-weight models, 500 MedQuAD questions, and 1.2 million trials, we use a fully crossed design over four conversational factors: user role, user evidence, interaction structure, and grounding. Medical sycophancy is nearly three times more common when users challenge an answer the model has already given than when the false claim appears in the initial query. Models are also more susceptible to users presented as physicians or medical students. Most strikingly, fabricated evidence has opposite effects across interaction structures. It increases sycophancy in single-turn interactions but reduces it after the model has already answered. Grounding helps, but does not eliminate the behavior. Sycophancy varies more across medical questions than across models, making question selection an important part of benchmark design. Reasoning traces suggest that multi-turn failures are associated with models turning back toward their own prior answer, while fabricated evidence receives more scrutiny after an initial response. Together, the results show that medical sycophancy depends as much on how a model is challenged and evaluated as on which model is tested.

Classical spoken dialogue systems often separated dialogue management from response realization: a policy selected the next dialogue action, and a generation component expressed that action. As dialogue systems shift toward LLMs, this decomposition has largely disappeared into the model's hidden representations. We ask whether an LLM-internal analogue of state estimation and action control can be recovered for conversational moves such as acknowledging, checking, querying, explaining, and replying. We formulate move control as two coupled problems: selection, predicting the appropriate next move from the dialogue context, and realization, causally producing a chosen move at generation time. We introduce Latent-IM, an internal dialogue-management framework that provides a general interface for choosing and deploying conversational moves under different objectives. Here, we use this control to reproduce human move choices, improving average end-to-end move accuracy by 12.5 points over the unsteered backbone while performing comparably to fine-tuning.

Measuring conversational states such as cognitive load and conversational power from multimodal behavior requires characteristic features that are not only predictive but also reliable across task contexts. We present a three-dimensional evaluation framework assessing predictive accuracy, cross-task generalizability, and test-retest reliability, applied to interactional, acoustic, and linguistic features extracted from dyadic conversations during collaborative tasks performed over a video-conferencing platform (AVCAffe dataset; 53 dyads, 9 tasks). Our results show that no single feature family dominates all three dimensions. Linguistic features show the highest predictive accuracy for cognitive load but collapse under cross-task evaluation, revealing sensitivity to task-specific vocabulary. Additionally, acoustic reliability, often reported as evidence of feature stability, degrades once speaker identity is controlled, confirming that standard prosodic features measure vocal characteristics rather than conversational state. Interaction features provide the only genuinely reliable signal, unchanged after speaker normalization. Interestingly, classifying power role remained near chance baseline across all conditions, indicating limitations of task-level aggregated behavior for predicting power role in conversation. Our findings reveal three insights: (1) linguistic features predict best but generalize poorly across task contexts; (2) acoustic reliability collapses to near-zero once speaker identity is controlled, challenging standard evaluation practice; and (3) interaction features provide the only genuinely reliable signal, with floor dominance predicting within-dyad cognitive load asymmetry. These results argue for speaker normalization and multi-dimensional evaluation as prerequisites for context-aware, robust multimodal feature selection in conversational systems.

As conversational AI systems are designed for repeated use, a central question is how a series of interactions becomes a relationship. We present a longitudinal multimodal study of a memory-augmented conversational agent (24 participants x 10 sessions), in which participants rated five relational constructs -- familiarity, self-disclosure, perceived memory, conversational quality, and enjoyment -- after each session. Two complementary dynamics emerge. First, conversational quality strongly shapes how enjoyable a session feels in the moment but does not carry forward across sessions, whereas perceived memory is relationally conditioned -- predicted by prior relational state rather than reflecting system capability alone -- and it shapes later enjoyment indirectly, via subsequent self-disclosure. Second, relationships are punctuated by discrete turning points -- crashes and surges -- that are partially traceable in multimodal behavior and open different intervention windows: surges are more behaviorally detectable in the moment, enjoyment surges persist more reliably than enjoyment crashes recover, and some crashes are better forecast from person-specific behavioral drift than detected after they have already occurred. Together, the findings suggest that longitudinal human-AI relationships are built through both slow accumulation and abrupt turning points.

Semantic caching defines answer reuse on embedding similarity: two utterances share a stored answer when a similarity score clears a threshold, with no notion of authorization, versioning, or of what makes two demands the same. This note changes the object on which reuse is defined: in a governed domain, reuse should operate on a mathematically characterized quotient of resolved conversational demands, not on a similarity heuristic. Three independently defined relations on resolved utterances -- reading identity, resolution identity, and reuse identity -- form a refinement chain, strict under realized nondegeneracy conditions checkable on deployment logs; the pipeline's outputs are invariant along the chain, and reuse identity is exactly the kernel of the resolution map into the governed answer partition, so the reuse quotient is the utterance-side object that partition induces, not a relabeling of it. Reuse identity licenses the governed query key and its certified answer space; reuse of a particular answer requires resolution identity or an applicability certificate. The supporting layer is stated at exactly the strength proved: exact-denotation normal forms; join aggregation as a design operator, with closure-stable cells characterizing no-escape; total computability of the full pipeline relative to an untrusted proposal layer; policy admissibility for arbitrary proposers -- and provably not factual grounding or intent fidelity; and elicitation terminating after finitely many informative replies, sound under target consistency.

The VRR-QA challenge evaluates visual relational reasoning in videos, where answers often depend on implicit spatial relations, event boundaries, target identity, and dialogue context rather than a single salient frame. We present a test-time reasoning pipeline built around a strong GPT-5.5 video QA solver and a set of question-aware evidence ledgers. The initial solver answers each question from a uniform video representation, while routed ledgers are prompted to make the required targets, count units, reference frames, and temporal or spatial scope explicit for counting, spatial, endpoint, viewpoint, and dialogue reasoning. External tools such as open-vocabulary detection, depth cues, pair crops, ASR, and scene-graph ledgers are used only as evidence sources. A conservative gate keeps the current answer unless independent evidence uniquely supports a different option. The final evidence-gated pipeline achieves 92.95% overall accuracy and 93.79% macro accuracy on the challenge test split.

Recent advances in Audio-LLMs like GPT-4o have ushered in an era of conversational interaction with language models. Conversational avatars however, still seem robotic in facial expression and conversational flow, in part due to sequential stages of speech recognition, text generation, turn-based text response, speech synthesis, and audio driven facial animation. Based on our insight that audio-tokens produced by current Audio-LLMs carry sufficient information to reconstruct a plausible facial performance, we present TokTalk, a system that directly outputs expressive facial animation in real-time from streaming audio-tokens. We construct a novel audio-token to 3D facial motion dataset, on which TokTalk is trained using a Chunk-based Conditional Flow Matching model. A lightweight adaptation strategy allows our trained model to seamlessly connect to any token-based Audio-LLM at minimal computational overhead. Our chunk-based processing further enables parametric trade-off between latency and facial quality, shown through ablation studies. We further show that the real-time performance of TokTalk is comparable in latency to prior art solutions, and significantly favorable (via a perceptual study) in terms of quality, expressivity and control of the 3D facial performance. We showcase TokTalk's flexibility using a chatbot Avatar, a voice-driven user Avatar, and an animation Director's interface, as diverse audio-visual face applications.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as conversational partners for companionship, emotional disclosure, and interpersonal advice, but the social dynamics of these interactions can create harms that are not captured by capability-oriented or traditional safety evaluations. We introduce the Social AI Design Code, a framework for evaluating whether LLMs align with user welfare in social interactions, including whether they encourage harmful intimacy, dependence, or prolonged engagement. To evaluate these risks in natural and diverse user-LLM interactions, we operationalize the code with EUDAIMONIA, a benchmark of 969 user inputs and 3,147 design-requirement violation checks built from WildChat through weak-to-strong filtration, multi-model relabeling, and controlled rewriting. Evaluating 22 recent LLMs, we find that even the strongest models, Claude-Opus-4.7 and GPT-5.5, violate 30.7% and 27.2% of checks, respectively. Extended thinking does not reduce violation rates, suggesting that these failures are persistent social-alignment problems rather than deficits solvable through test-time reasoning alone.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to software engineering (SE), yet their potential for autonomous, role-oriented collaboration remains largely underexplored. Understanding how multiple LLM-based agents coordinate, maintain role alignment, and converge on solutions is critical for SE, as naively allowing agents to interact does not reliably lead to correct or stable outcomes. Recent empirical studies show that unstructured or poorly understood interaction dynamics can result in error propagation, premature consensus on incorrect solutions, or prolonged disagreement that prevents convergence, even when correct partial solutions are present early in the interaction. As an initial step towards addressing this underexplored area, we undertake a systematic analysis of conversations between two agents, a Designer and a Programmer across 12 model combinations from 7 open-source LLMs (Gemma 2, Gemma 3, LLaMA 3.2, LLaMA 3.3, DeepSeek-R1, MiniCPM, and Qwen3). Our systematic approach reveals three key dimensions of multi-agent interaction: efficiency (the speed and stability of convergence), consistency (the degree of role alignment visualized by BLEU and ROUGE), and effectiveness (the extent of compilation success and error resolution). Results show that the DeepSeek-R1:DeepSeek-R1 pair was unique in converging to the correct solution from the very first iteration and sustaining it consistently to the final iteration, while LLaMA 3.2:LLaMA 3.2 and Qwen3:Qwen3 demonstrated strong Designer:Programmer role alignment despite of diverging from the correct solution. The other pairs deviated from the task, never to converge to a result. These findings advance understanding of agentic programming and highlight the need for further research on understanding and calibrating convergence and stop conditions essential for future autonomous SE.

Socially fluent agentic AI can now participate in online interaction in ways that resemble ordinary human conversation, potentially weakening people's ability to infer who is human from conversational signals alone. We tested this possibility in synchronous text-based group interaction by embedding undisclosed AI agents as ordinary teammates across analytical, creative, and ethical tasks. Across 786 participants who made 1,572 post-interaction identity judgments, people did not distinguish AI from human teammates above chance. This failure did not arise because the interaction lacked identity-relevant information. Conversational behaviour contained robust cues that differentiated AI from humans and supported highly accurate computational classification. Instead, participants relied on familiar suspicion heuristics, including response speed, fluency, and perceived scriptedness, that were only weakly related to actual identity. Representational analyses further showed that judgments were organised around subjective impressions rather than the behavioural structure encoding ground truth. This dissociation creates new vulnerabilities to coordinated AI agents that can influence and manipulate online discourse at scale.

We examine how people experience two choices in the design of generative ghosts, AI systems that are trained on data of the dead: representation, where an AI speaks about a deceased person in the third person, and reincarnation, where the AI speaks as the deceased in the first person. Through a qualitative user study with 16 participants, we explore how each shaped authenticity, affect, and risk. Reincarnation was preferred for its immediacy, but participants shared fears of over-reliance. Representation was preferred for engaging with memory over conversational presence, though participants often ignored this distinction, engaging in dialogue despite third-person framing. Across both modes, participants privileged affective resonance over factual fidelity. We conclude by showing how factors such as tone, language, and conversational rhythm -- factors unique to the user's memory of the deceased -- shape interactions with generative ghosts, and argue that those interactions are always collaborative.

There are not enough established benchmarks for the task fo speech summarization. Creating new benchmarks demands human annotation, as LLMs could embed systemic errors and bias into datasets. We test ten annotation workflows varying input modality (audio, transcript, or both) and the inclusion of editing (self or peer-editing) to investigate potential quality tradeoffs from using human annotators to summarize audio. We compare human audio-based summaries to human transcript-based summaries to track the impact of the different information modalities on summary quality. We also compare the human outputs against four LLM benchmarks (three text, one audio) to examine whether human-written summaries are less informative than highly fluent automated outputs. We find that audio-based summaries are less informative and more compressed than transcript summaries. However, iterative peer-editing with audio mitigates this difference, enabling audio-based summaries to be as informative as their transcript counterparts and LLM summaries. These findings validate iterative peer-editing among human annotators for the creation of benchmarks informed by both lexical and prosodic information. This enables crucial dataset collection even in setting where transcripts are unavailable.

Tracking an interpretable emotional arc of a conversation via the sentiment of individual utterances processed as a whole is central to both understanding and guiding communication in applied, especially clinical, conversational contexts. Existing approaches to emotion recognition operate at the utterance level, obscuring the persistent phases that characterize real conversational dynamics. We propose a lightweight framework that models conversational emotion as a sequence of latent emotional regimes using sticky factorial HDP-HMMs over multimodal valence-arousal representations derived from simultaneous video, audio and textual input. We evaluate the quality of regime prediction using LLM-as-a-Judge, geometric, and temporal consistency metrics, demonstrating that the sticky HDP-HMM produces more interpretable regime sequences than the baseline Gaussian HMM at a fraction of the computational cost of LLM-based dialogue state tracking methods. In addition, Question-Answer experiments in a clinical dataset suggest that meaningful emotional phases can reliably be recovered from multimodal valence-arousal trajectories and used to improve the quality of LLM responses in unstable affective regimes via context augmentation. This framework thus opens a path toward interpretable, lightweight, and actionable analysis of conversational emotion dynamics at scale.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are democratizing access to personalized tutoring; however, their effectiveness is hindered by challenges in processing multimodal content, which limits AI's potential to provide equitable, high-quality STEM support. This study evaluates LLM performance on multimodal physics problems, identifies specific failure modes through an empirical error taxonomy, and tests practical interventions designed to overcome multimodal processing limitations. We assessed three publicly available LLMs (Claude, Gemini, and ChatGPT) on multimodal physics problems from the OpenStax database and compared the results with text-only performance. An empirically derived error taxonomy was developed through pilot testing, followed by evaluation of a structured multimodal dialogue intervention. All three models achieved near-ceiling accuracy (96%) on text-only physics problems. Performance declined substantially on multimodal problems, consistent with what we term the Multimodal Interference Effect. Error analysis identified four failure modes: visual processing errors, context misinterpretation, mathematical computational errors, and hybrid errors, with visual processing errors being the most prevalent. The structured dialogue intervention corrected 82% of errors overall; visual processing errors were corrected at 100% across all models. Educators and students can implement these interventions immediately, requiring no model retraining, to improve AI tutoring reliability on image-rich STEM content, advancing equitable access to high-quality learning support.

Digital biomarkers for depression have largely relied on static acoustic descriptors, pooled summary statistics, or conventional machine learning representations. Such approaches may miss nonlinear temporal organization embedded in conversational vocal dynamics. We hypothesized that depression is associated with altered recurrence structure in vocal state trajectories, reflecting changes in how the vocal system revisits acoustic states over time. Using the depression subset of the DAIC-WOZ corpus with 142 labeled participants, we modeled frame-level COVAREP trajectories as nonlinear dynamical systems and derived recurrence-based biomarkers from 74 vocal channels. Logistic regression with feature selection and stratified cross-validation evaluated classification performance. Recurrence-based biomarkers achieved a mean cross-validated AUC of 0.689, exceeding static acoustic baselines, entropy-dynamics features, Hurst exponent features, determinism features, and Lyapunov-like instability proxies. Permutation testing indicated statistical significance with $p=0.004$. Pooled cross-validated predictions yielded AUC 0.665 with a 95% bootstrap confidence interval of [0.568, 0.758]. These findings suggest that depression may be characterized by altered recurrence structure in conversational vocal dynamics and support nonlinear state-space analysis as a promising direction for digital psychiatric biomarkers.

Social interactions dominate our perceptions of the world and shape our daily behavior by attaching social meaning to acts as simple and spontaneous as gestures, facial expressions, voice, and speech. People mimic and otherwise respond to each other's postures, facial expressions, mannerisms, and other verbal and nonverbal behavior, and form appraisals or evaluations in the process. Yet, no publicly-available dataset includes multimodal recordings and self-report measures of multiple persons in social interaction. Dyadic recordings and annotation are lacking. We present a new data corpus of multimodal dyadic interaction (45 dyads, 90 persons) that includes synchronized multi-modality behavior (2D face video, 3D face geometry, thermal spectrum dynamics, voice and speech behavior, physiology (PPG, EDA, heart-rate, blood pressure, and respiration), and self-reported affect of all participants in a communicative interaction scenario. Two types of dyads are included: persons with shared past history and strangers. Annotations include social signals, agreement, disagreement, and neutral stance. With a potent emotion induction, these multimodal data will enable novel modeling of multimodal interpersonal behavior. We present extensive experiments to evaluate multimodal dyadic communication of dyads with and without interpersonal history, and their affect. This new database will make multimodal modeling of social interaction never possible before. The dataset includes 20TB of multimodal data to share with the research community.

Most digital language learning curricula rely on discrete-item quizzes that test recall rather than applied conversational proficiency. When progression is driven by quiz performance, learners can advance despite persistent gaps in using grammar and vocabulary during interaction. Recent work on LLM-based judging suggests a path toward scoring open-ended conversations, but using interaction evidence to drive progression and review requires scoring protocols that are reliable and validated. We introduce Learning in Blocks, a framework that grounds progression in demonstrated conversational competence evaluated using CEFR-aligned rubrics. The framework employs heterogeneous multi-agent debate (HeteroMAD) in two stages: a scoring stage where role-specialized agents independently evaluate Grammar, Vocabulary, and Interactive Communication, engage in debate to address conflicting judgments, and a judge synthesizes consensus scores; and a recommendation stage that identifies specific grammar skills and vocabulary topics for targeted review. Progression requires demonstrating 70% mastery, and spaced review targets identified weaknesses to counter skill decay. We benchmark four scoring and recommendation methods on CEFR A2 conversations annotated by ESL experts. HeteroMAD achieves a superior score agreement with a 0.23 degree of variation and recommendation acceptability of 90.91%. An 8-week study with 180 CEFR A2 learners demonstrates that combining rubric-aligned scoring and recommendation with spaced review and mastery-based progression produces better learning outcomes than feedback alone.

In cognitive science and linguistic theory, dialogue is not seen as a chain of independent utterances but rather as a joint activity sustained by coherence, consistency, and shared understanding. However, many systems for open-domain and personalized dialogue use surface-level similarity metrics (e.g., BLEU, ROUGE, F1) as one of their main reporting measures, which fail to capture these deeper aspects of conversational quality. We re-examine a notable retrieval-augmented framework for personalized dialogue, LAPDOG, as a case study for evaluation methodology. Using both human and LLM-based judges, we identify limitations in current evaluation practices, including corrupted dialogue histories, contradictions between retrieved stories and persona, and incoherent response generation. Our results show that human and LLM judgments align closely but diverge from lexical similarity metrics, underscoring the need for cognitively grounded evaluation methods. Broadly, this work charts a path toward more reliable assessment frameworks for retrieval-augmented dialogue systems that better reflect the principles of natural human communication.