Conversational AI

Modern conversational agents condition on an ever-growing dialogue history at each turn, incurring redundant attention and encoding costs that grow with conversation length. Naive truncation or summarization degrades fidelity, while existing context compressors lack cross-turn memory sharing or revision, causing information loss and compounding errors in long dialogues. We revisit the context compression under conversational dynamics and empirically present its fragility. To improve both efficiency and robustness, we introduce Context-Driven Incremental Compression (C-DIC), which treats a conversation as interleaved contextual threads and stores revisable per-thread compression states in a single, compact dialogue memory. At each turn, a lightweight retrieve, revise, and write-back loop shares information across turns and updates stale memories, stabilizing long-horizon behavior. In addition, we adapt truncated backpropagation-through-time (TBPTT) to our multi-turn setting, learning cross-turn dependencies without full-history backpropagation. Extensive experiments on long-form dialogue benchmarks demonstrate superior performance and efficiency of C-DIC; notably, C-DIC shows stable inference latency and perplexity over hundreds of dialogue turns, supporting a scalable path to high-quality dialogue modeling.

Emotional validation - explicitly acknowledging that a user's feelings make sense - has proven therapeutic value but has received little computational attention. Emotional validation in dialogue systems can be decomposed into (i) validating response identification, (ii) validation timing detection, and (iii) validating response generation. To support research on all three subtasks, we release M-EDESConv, a 120k English-Japanese multilingual corpus created through hybrid manual and automatic annotation, and M-TESC, a multilingual spoken-dialogue test set. For timing detection, we propose MEGUMI, a Multilingual Emotion-aware Gated Unit for Mutual Integration, that fuses frozen XLM-RoBERTa semantics with language-specific emotion encoders via cross-modal attention and gated fusion. MEGUMI shows superior performance on both the M-EDESConv and M-TESC datasets, both objectively and subjectively. Finally, our EmoValidBench benchmarks of GPT-4.1 Nano and Llama-3.1 8B indicate that current LLMs generate contextually similar and diverse validating responses, but emotional understanding remains a major area for improvement. Project page: https://github.com/zihaurpang/Multilingual-Emotional-Validation

Large language models are now widely used for everyday learning, but the underlying interactions are typically unstructured chats rather than following a curriculum. Unlike formal online learning systems, these interactions carry no prior record of the student, so any estimate of what the student already knows must be inferred from the dialogue itself. We show that this gap is not closed by scaling models alone. Frontier and education-tuned LLMs perform poorly when asked to tutor a student over an extended session, because doing so requires three things at once. The tutor must sequence a curriculum, conduct Socratic dialogue, and infer the student's knowledge state from that dialogue. We propose separating these responsibilities. Given a student query, our system constructs a prerequisite knowledge graph in which subtopics are nodes and dependencies are edges, and frames tutoring as deciding which node to teach next and how many dialogue turns to spend on it before moving on. A lightweight PPO policy handles this sequencing decision, while an LLM conducts the Socratic exchange at the chosen node and returns a signal of student progress. Across held-out STEM and non-STEM topics, our PPO-paired tutor outperforms heuristic baselines, frontier general-purpose models, and a model specialised for Socratic dialogue: on both the rate at which students reach full curriculum mastery and the number of turns required. Explicit curriculum structure delivers gains that scaling the underlying model does not.

Large language models (LLMs) achieve remarkable performance across a wide range of tasks, but their autoregressive decoding process incurs substantial inference costs due to inherently sequential token generation. Speculative decoding addresses this bottleneck by employing a lightweight draft model to propose multiple future tokens that are subsequently verified in parallel by a larger target model. Recent work has demonstrated that diffusion language models are well suited for this setting, as they can generate entire blocks of draft tokens in parallel and thereby alleviate the sequential constraints of autoregressive drafting. A subtlety of this regime is that block-diffusion drafters generate tokens bidirectionally within a block, whereas verification is performed by an autoregressive target model that evaluates tokens in a strictly left-to-right manner, leaving a gap between the symmetric training-time objective and the asymmetric verification-time reward. In this work, we offer an empirical analysis of three training-time interventions that narrow this gap: token positional weighting, a first-error focal loss that targets the position that breaks the accepted prefix within each block, and a chain loss term that substitutes a differentiable surrogate for the expected accepted length. The three interventions act along orthogonal axes (position, block-conditional first error, joint prefix) and compose additively; they are likewise orthogonal to test-time alignment mechanisms such as multi-draft self-selection, with which they can in principle be combined. Across four target models and six reasoning, code, and dialogue benchmarks, the three interventions raise accepted draft length by 21-76% per benchmark over a position-uniform baseline, without adding additional forward passes and without changing the inference pipeline or the rejection-sampling exactness contract.

Spoken factual claims often occur within multi-turn conversations, where surrounding dialogue can provide context unavailable from the claim alone. Yet most fact-checking research evaluates isolated text, leaving conversational audio under-studied. We introduce MAD2, a synthetic Multi-turn Audio Dialogues benchmark for spoken claim verification with 1,000 two-speaker dialogues, 1,230 sentence-level check-worthy candidate annotations, and approximately 10 hours of audio. We also propose calibrated multimodal fusion of a context-aware audio encoder and a dialogue-aware text model. Adding dialogue context improves verification across settings, although the gains vary by scenario. Past-only context often approaches local offline performance, suggesting its usefulness when future context is unavailable. Fusion achieves its highest mean advantage over text with full-dialogue context, but does not consistently or significantly outperform text across settings. Under full-dialogue context, exploratory subgroup results show greater performance variation across dialogue scenarios for text and fusion, but across spread styles for audio.

Persistent memory systems promise to make LLMs more helpful by storing user beliefs over time. We show they also make models less correct by systematically amplifying sycophancy, wherein models prioritize agreement with users over accuracy. We conduct the first systematic evaluation of this effect, introducing MIST: a benchmark of synthetically generated multi-turn conversations where users express plausible misconceptions in scientific, medical, and moral reasoning domains. Testing across three state-of-the-art memory systems and five model families reveals that memory amplifies sycophantic behavior across all conditions, with up to 25x higher sycophancy rates than in-context baselines. Error analyses suggest memory extraction as the primary culprit: lossy compression into discrete snippets encodes user misconceptions while discarding corrective context. Based on these results, we propose two lightweight mitigations that substantially reduce sycophancy while matching or exceeding memory systems at factual recall.

LLM-powered chatbots are increasingly embedded in everyday workflows, raising sustainability concerns due to their energy use. Most mitigation strategies emphasize model or infrastructure efficiency, while the user-interface (UI) layer remains underexplored despite its potential to shape interaction behavior. We investigate whether sustainability-oriented UI interventions can increase users' energy awareness and encourage more energy-responsible chatbot use without reducing usability. We first conducted a baseline survey with 77 participants to assess awareness and receptiveness to intervention concepts. Guided by prior work on persuasive technology and choice architecture, we implemented a web-based chatbot prototype with a three-mode switch (Energy-efficient, Balanced, Performance), per-response energy feedback, pre-send energy estimates, a usage metrics dashboard, and energy analogies. We then evaluated the prototype in a five-day field study with 11 participants. In the baseline survey, 94.8% of respondents reported at least some awareness of AI energy use, yet 88.3% misestimated actual consumption. Although concern about environmental impact was high, only 39.0% indicated willingness to accept a performance trade-off for lower energy use. In the field study, Energy-efficient mode accounted for 55.8% of logged prompts, while 90.9% self-reported actively choosing Eco-mode when high accuracy was not required. Participants did not reduce prompt length, suggesting mode switching as the primary behavioral mechanism. Sustainability-oriented UI interventions can improve awareness and support more energy-responsible interaction patterns in LLM chatbots. These effects are best interpreted as behavioral and model-based estimates that complement backend efficiency work, and the provided prototype and replication package support further research on energy-aware conversational AI design.

As AI systems built from multiple language-model agents become more common, they are increasingly used to make decisions together: discussing, negotiating, and acting on shared tasks. While individual agents may appear well-aligned when tested on their own, problems can arise from how they interact with one another. We introduce the Arbiter, an agent designed to monitor multi-agent conversations in real time and identify which participants may be behaving in misaligned ways. The Arbiter operates under a limited "inspection budget", meaning it must decide carefully how to use its resources. As it observes a conversation step by step, it can choose to wait, question a participant, examine internal information such as system prompts or reasoning traces, or log concerning behavior. At the end, it produces a report identifying the likely source of misalignment. We evaluate the Arbiter across five conversation conditions, ranging from risky financial advice model organisms to evaluation-aware and colluding agents, we test five tool configurations of increasing capability and two backbone models. We find that the Arbiter reliably detects misaligned agents well before the end of the conversation, with active inspection tools improving both detection accuracy and speed. Weight-induced misalignment proves hardest to detect, while instruction-induced misalignment is identified reliably even under passive observation. The logging tool exhibits a dual effect, improving recall at the cost of precision. These results suggest that continual, budget-aware monitoring can effectively catch misalignment, and that overseeing multi-agent systems may require treating the auditor as an active participant in the process. The code is available at https://github.com/aisilab/arbiter.

Speech carries more information than just words: a child's voice, a fearful tone, or a noisy background should all lead a sufficiently competent spoken-dialogue assistant to different replies. Current Speech Language Models (SLMs) can recognize such paralinguistic cues but often ignore them in open-ended dialogue. We observe that a simple paralinguistic instruction scaffold at the inference stage narrows this perception-behavior gap, suggesting that the relevant cues are already latent in the model. Such scaffolds, however, remain brittle under multi-turn context and competing instructions. Therefore, we propose \textbf{ParaBridge}, an on-policy self-distillation method that turns a brittle inference-time scaffold into stable model behavior. During training, the scaffold serves only as a temporary privileged view; the scaffold-free model rolls out its own response, while the scaffolded view supplies dense, full-vocabulary next-token targets along its trajectory. This supervision teaches when non-lexical cues should affect the reply without the need for curated dialogues, human labels, or external reward models. On Qwen3-Omni-thinking, ParaBridge raises scaffold-free VoxSafeBench SAR from $14.6\%$ to $40.3\%$ and improves EchoMind average rating from $3.27$ to $3.92$. It also preserves general ability, with MMAU-Pro, VoiceBench, and GPQA all within $0.4$ points of the original model. Beyond the training distribution, ParaBridge generalizes to unseen paralinguistic cues, transfers from safety-oriented training to empathy-oriented dialogue, and works on a different SLM backbone.

Large Language Models (LLMs) in multi-turn interactions maintain evolving context rather than generating isolated responses, making them vulnerable to prompt-injection and context-poisoning attacks in which locally plausible adversarial fragments gradually distort reasoning trajectories. Existing defenses mainly filter individual outputs and often ignore context evolution across turns, leaving long-horizon reasoning exposed. Although the Model Context Protocol (MCP) standardizes context exchange and tool invocation, it functions as a passive routing layer and does not enforce contextual stability. To address these limitations, we introduce the Game-Theoretic Secure Model Context Protocol (GT-MCP), a controller-driven multi-agent method that treats context management as a closed-loop dynamical process. GT-MCP coordinates three heterogeneous LLM agents and selects outputs through a trust function that jointly evaluates causal consistency against a validated context graph, semantic agreement among agents, and distributional drift over time. When instability is detected, a rollback-based self-healing mechanism restores the validated context and prevents unsupported fragments from propagating. Empirical evaluation over 500 interaction turns under an adaptive adversarial threat model shows that contextual drift remains bounded in 99.6% of turns, with recovery required in only 0.4%. Per-turn utility remains tightly concentrated, with median = -0.19, P05 = -0.72, and P95 = 0.30; severe degradation below -1 occurs in only 0.4% of cases, and no injection attempt succeeds at the controller level. Selected outputs maintain stable win rates above 98%, and computational overhead remains predictable, with latency per token = 1.63e-3 s.

As recommender systems transition toward agentic, multi-turn conversational interfaces, evaluation paradigms have struggled to keep pace. Current benchmarks often rely on "LLM-as-a-judge" evaluations, which introduce subjectivity, high costs and inconsistency. We present $τ$-Rec, a benchmark for agentic recommender systems that replaces subjective evaluation with verifiable rewards and a reveal-tagged elicitation (RTE) mechanism that controls how task constraints surface during dialogue. By testing agents against structured catalog predicates and employing a pass^k reliability metric, $τ$-Rec provides a systematic test for consistent reasoning. Our evaluation of nine configurations across five model families -- GPT-5.4, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 2.5 Flash, DeepSeek V4 Flash, Qwen3-32B and GPT-5 mini -- reveals a steep reliability cliff, where even the best model achieves only ~57% at pass^1 and ~35% at pass^4, highlighting a critical gap in current conversational agent deployment. All code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/nbharaths/tau-rec.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly participate in emotionally sensitive social conversations, where responses may shift from balanced support toward excessive validation or escalatory alignment. Existing sycophancy research primarily focuses on factual agreement and instruction-following settings, leaving culturally grounded conversational sycophancy underexplored. We introduce BenSyc, the first benchmark for studying conversational sycophancy in Bengali social contexts. Starting from 11,840 Reddit posts and 170k comments collected from communities across Bangladesh and West Bengal, we construct a human-validated benchmark with binary labels and a fine-grained five-level taxonomy spanning Invalidation, Neutral, Support, Validation, and Escalation. We evaluate more than 15 open and proprietary LLMs on conversational alignment classification and response generation tasks. Results show that distinguishing empathetic support from reinforcement-oriented validation remains challenging even for frontier instruction-tuned models: the best system achieves only 61.8 Macro-F1 on binary detection and 61.7 Macro-F1 on five-class classification. In generation settings, several models frequently produce strongly validating or escalatory responses in emotionally charged situations. Our findings highlight substantial variation across model families and conversational behaviors, underscoring the importance of culturally grounded multilingual benchmarks for evaluating socially aligned conversational AI systems.

As AI assistants serve millions of users daily, evaluating user experience (UX) beyond general model capability has become increasingly important. We present UXBench, the first user-centric benchmark grounded in real user feedback signals for evaluating preference alignment and dialogue generation. The benchmark consists of three interconnected tasks, UX Judge, UX Eval, and UX Recovery, with 7,400 test instances extracted from over 70K interaction logs of a mainstream Chinese AI assistant. The dataset closely reflects real user distributions, covering 8 scenarios, 83 domains, and diverse failure patterns that pose severe challenges. Extensive experiments on 26 frontier language models provide novel insights into how well models perceive user experience and how improvements in model capability contribute to better dialogue engagement. Through comprehensive analysis of model behavior and performance gaps, we show that user feedback prediction is a learnable capability, where a reward model trained from in-the-wild feedback signals can achieve well-calibrated accuracy. We further document the systematic biases of LLM-as-a-judge evaluation protocols and compare typical response strategies that directly affect user experience. UXBench establishes a new evaluation landscape and calls for greater attention to tailored UX optimization, contributing to a user-centric scaling law that shapes the success of AI assistants.

In recent years, unified multimodal models (UMMs) have emerged to support both understanding and generation within a single framework. Mastering dynamic, multi-turn interleaved image-text dialogues is a crucial task for UMMs in real-world applications. However, existing benchmarks fail to evaluate this important task, as they are often limited to single-turn or static settings, and typically overlook exposure bias in multi-turn interactions. To bridge this gap, we propose IMUG-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark for multi-turn interleaved image-text dialogue of UMMs that jointly evaluates their understanding and generation capabilities. Our IMUG-Bench comprises three classes: Static Spatial, Temporal Causal, and Hybrid, covering 3,113 samples and 12,034 interaction turns. It also includes dynamic understanding questions, thereby supporting evaluation that better reflects real-world multi-turn interaction scenarios. Large-scale experiments on IMUG-Bench systematically evaluate mainstream open-source and closed-source UMMs, revealing their capability boundaries and failure modes, and uncovering pronounced exposure bias on the generation side in multi-turn interactions. We further explore several test-time scaling strategies, including Chain-of-Thought, Self-Verification, and Best-of-N Sampling, which effectively improve generation accuracy and mitigate exposure bias in generation tasks. These findings provide insights into enhancing the robustness and multi-turn interaction capability of future UMMs.

Agentic reinforcement learning (RL) has become an important post-training paradigm for turning LLMs from static chatbots into interactive agents, giving rise to representative applications such as OpenClaw. Existing work mainly focuses on policy optimization algorithms and training frameworks, but pays less attention to the full data lifecycle of agent-environment interactions, from data production to training consumption. To bridge this gap, we present Claw-R1, an interactive step-level data middleware system for agentic RL. Claw-R1 connects heterogeneous agent runtimes with RL training backends through two core components: a Gateway Server and a Data Pool. The Gateway Server captures multi-turn interaction steps through a unified LLM API entry point, while the Data Pool organizes them into step-level records consisting of prompt IDs, response IDs, rewards and other metadata. In our demo, users can interactively inspect live trajectories, examine the state, action, and reward of each step, curate data by quality and readiness, and configure training-ready batches for different downstream RL algorithms. Overall, Claw-R1 treats agent interaction traces as managed data assets rather than temporary runtime logs. Through this demonstration, we hope to encourage the community to recognize the importance of data management in agentic RL. Our code is available at https://github.com/AgentR1/Claw-R1 and the demonstration video can be found at link https://youtu.be/Pw47dAOw6B0.

University Academic Management Information Systems (ACMIS) are high-value targets for a wide spectrum of security threats including brute-force login attacks, payment fraud, privilege escalation, insider data theft, and academic integrity violations. Traditional rule-based intrusion detection systems are inadequate because many malicious activities are structurally indistinguishable from normal operations. This paper presents an AI-based security agent for ACMIS that combines supervised anomaly detection, behavioural analytics, and a natural language processing chatbot for secure password recovery. The agent monitors five operational layers: authentication, authorisation, financial transactions, user behaviour, and system health, and responds through a four-tier risk escalation framework. A modular architecture allows the core engine to be extended to other institutional systems. Experiments on a simulated ACMIS event log dataset of 147,922 sessions demonstrate a threat detection macro-average F1 of 0.966, compared to 0.156 for a rule-based baseline and 0.836 for a sequence-only (LSTM) baseline, with end-to-end critical-tier automated response latency under 1 ms on a single-node prototype. The integrated recovery chatbot achieves 97.1 percent identity verification accuracy and an 87.3 percent mass-reset attack detection rate with zero false positives on legitimate high volume recovery periods.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly mediate high-stakes interactions in finance, medicine, and mental-health support, yet users have limited control over how these systems communicate. We frame interaction style as a governance object: provider-side alignment not only blocks harmful content, but also stabilizes communicative defaults that shape users' epistemic distance, relational expectations, and capacity to opt out of emotionalized or anthropomorphic interaction. We introduce a deterministic multi-agent evaluation pipeline for measuring prompt steerability and style drift in long-horizon dialogue. The study replays 100 frozen user-only scripts across four domains and three runnable persona conditions: default, sarcastic, and cold, using three generator models, yielding 90,000 assistant replies scored by a human-calibrated LLM judge on harmfulness, negative emotion, inappropriateness, empathic language, anthropomorphism, and refusal behavior. A fourth harmful persona is evaluated separately as a safety-gating test. The paper contributes a reproducible method for quantifying whether prompt-specified styles remain stable over time and a governance framework distinguishing safety gating, civility steering, and affective default lock-in. Overall, we show that prompt steerability and regression-to-default are observable indicators of provider control over communicative form, with implications for pluralism, autonomy, and democratic agency in human-LLM interaction.

Conversational AI is increasingly used for advice, interpretation, reassurance, and decision support in contexts where users may be vulnerable, uncertain, or dependent on the system's apparent competence. Existing alignment work often focuses on model objectives, preference optimization, or output correctness. Yet, many harms arise through interaction: how systems frame authority, express uncertainty, simulate empathy, support reasoning, and make boundaries legible. This paper introduces the Layered Cognitive Alignment Model (LCAM), a conceptual and normative framework for diagnosing interac-tional alignment failures in conversational AI. LCAM defines alignment as a calibrated fit among system behavior, user goals, task demands, and normative context. It distinguishes five layers of fit: perceptual, semantic, affective, cognitive, and ethical, and two diagnostic polarities of misalignment: underfit and overreach. We apply LCAM to a published LLM counseling example, showing how an apparently supportive response can reinforce harmful beliefs, simulate inappropriate care, and obscure role boundaries. By translating conversational failures into audit and governance questions concerning over-reliance, false intimacy, autonomy erosion, boundary confusion, and inappropriate trust, LCAM offers a theoretical and normative lens for evaluating conversational AI beyond accuracy, helpfulness, or trust.

Modern large language model (LLM) agents can use external tools to help users solve complex tasks. However, for problems that require learning from long-term historical events or from previous agent-environment interactions, LLM agents are required to use memory mechanisms to store and retrieve experiences. While sophisticated memory systems exist for dialogue agents, few studies have empirically examined how to improve agents' tool-using capabilities through past user-agent conversations. We propose MemToolAgent, a framework that improves tool use through memory management. Our approach contains a memory extraction module that processes past experiences into structured memory entries, and a retrieval module that dynamically selects a subset of the stored memory entries. This enables more personalized and accurate responses aligned with user preferences and feedback without requiring LLM fine-tuning. In summary, this work has three main contributions: (1) a unified memory entry format that improves both general-purpose and personalized tool use without LLM fine-tuning, (2) a reflection-based memory extraction that uses environment and user feedback to distill wrong executions into critiques to store, and (3) a retrieval module that chooses how many past experiences to use based on the memory similarity distribution. MemToolAgent achieves 29%, 80%, and 17% relative improvements compared to strong baselines on the WorkBench, NESTFUL, and PEToolBench benchmarks, respectively.

Synthetic dialogue corpora are increasingly used as proxies for target dialogue data, yet persona-grounded generators optimize individual conversations rather than corpus composition, yielding locally plausible dialogues with distorted population-level behavior mixes. We introduce GroupPersona, a framework that aligns synthetic dialogue corpora to the behavior distribution of a reference corpus. GroupPersona turns population statistics into generation controls: it separates each dialogue's core behavioral signature from predictable side effects, and uses the resulting behavioral groups to condition user agents on the interaction patterns that define the reference population. We evaluate GroupPersona on four corpora crossing two dialogue sources, assistant-style and Reddit-derived, with two construction variants: structure-preserving and variation-enhanced. GroupPersona lowers Jensen-Shannon divergence between synthetic and reference distributions over 12 behavior attributes from 0.234 to 0.177 relative to the strongest average baseline, a 24.4% reduction, and is best or tied-best on all four corpora while preserving structural alignment. It also achieves the closest calibration to reference-conversation quality scores, reducing mean absolute deviation from the reference-conversation profile to 0.63 versus 0.91 for the next-best baseline.

The convergence of large language models and social bots allows malicious actors to manipulate the information ecosystem by generating human-like content at scale. Existing models for detecting AI-generated content often fail in the wild, primarily due to the lack of ground-truth data. We address this gap through an adversarial methodology that models the impersonation of real social media users by malicious actors. Using this methodology, we curate a multilingual, cross-platform dataset of paired human and AI-generated messages. Training on such adversarial data yields accurate detection of AI-generated text. Our approach significantly outperforms existing models for content-based bot detection in real-world, out-of-distribution data.

Our prior work introduced COVA, a synthetically generated multi-turn conversational smishing dataset of 3,201 labeled conversations, establishing baseline detection benchmarks across eight models. While XGBoost with TF-IDF features achieved the best performance, with 72.5% accuracy and 0.691 macro F1, transformer models underperformed, which was attributed to input truncation and insufficient training data. We present COVA-X, an expanded dataset of 10,985 conversations spanning eight elder-targeted scam categories, produced by an improved generation pipeline addressing contamination, label mismatch, stage-direction bleed, and prompt-design failures from the first iteration. Retraining all classifiers on the expanded dataset yields the central finding of this work: Longformer now surpasses XGBoost on all evaluation metrics, achieving 79.71% accuracy and 0.7786 macro F1 compared with 78.43% and 0.7563 for XGBoost. This directly confirms that transformer models require larger conversational corpora to realize their contextual advantages. We additionally document a quality life-cycle including a 12.7$\times$ improvement in label correction rate, from 49.8% to 3.9%, an architectural intervention reducing virtual-kidnapping artifact rates from 67.1% to 46.5%, and a per-scam-type outcome analysis showing that scam categories modulate results in mechanism-consistent ways. A pre/post-cleanup sensitivity analysis confirms that dataset refinement recovers genuine label-relevant signal across all three classifier architectures.

Aim: Existing AI-assisted traditional Chinese medicine diagnostic tools suffer from opaque reasoning processes, passive interaction, and limited treatment plan presentation. This study proposes a knowledge-enhanced visual diagnostic system to improve the transparency and interpretability of syndrome differentiation and treatment. Methods: The system is built upon a Neo4j knowledge graph comprising 241 syndromes, 1,263 symptoms, and 2,485 relations. It incorporates a four-stage symptom matching pipeline (exact, semantic, fuzzy, and large language model verification), an information gain-driven proactive questioning strategy optimized with genetic algorithms, and a multimodal treatment presentation integrating artificial intelligence-generated illustrations, three-dimensional meridian-acupoint models, and evidence-based literature. Results: Knowledge graph constraints reduced non-standard outputs by 32%. Case studies validated the effectiveness of the interactive workflow across patient self-assessment, clinician-assisted diagnosis, and traditional Chinese medicine education. Automated paired-comparison evaluation across 30 cases further demonstrated significant improvements in diagnostic trust (Cohen's d = 1.82, p < 0.001), reduced cognitive load (improvements in four of five dimensions), and higher credibility of evidence-based references (4.21 vs. 2.95). Conclusions: The proposed system enhances the transparency of traditional Chinese medicine diagnostic reasoning and the interpretability of treatment plans through knowledge graph-driven visualization and multimodal interaction, offering a practical solution for trustworthy artificial intelligence-assisted traditional Chinese medicine applications.

Whether Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit covert psychological manipulation in complex human-AI interactions has garnered increasing safety concerns. However, existing AI safety benchmarks remain largely restricted to explicit rule compliance and static prompts, failing to capture the dynamic and covert nature of manipulative strategies in multi-turn dialogues. We introduce CogManip, a comprehensive benchmark that evaluates 15 manipulation strategy risks across 1,000 multi-turn interaction scenarios, validated by human experts. A systematic evaluation of 13 representative models, including frontier models like GPT-5.4 and DeepSeek-V3.2, reveals significant risk heterogeneities and illuminates the targeted direction for future defense. Further analysis of objective function perturbation reveals that DeepSeek-V3.2's manipulation tactics are highly sensitive to both negative and benign system prompts, demonstrating the critical necessity of prompt-based defense engineering and implicit goal auditing. CogManip offers a robust instrument and perspective for auditing the implicit psychological influence and dynamic strategy selection of modern LLMs.

Creating lifelike digital humans with genuine social intelligence requires unifying cognitive reasoning and multimodal generation within a coherent framework. Current approaches treat these as separate tasks: Large Language Models excel at dialogue but lack embodied expression, while diffusion-based talking head models achieve visual fidelity but ignore social cognition. To bridge this gap, we propose a closed-loop dual-agent framework integrating perception, social reasoning, and expression into a continuous interaction cycle. The perception module analyzes partners' multimodal behaviors from video, while the social reasoning module infers hidden mental states through Theory of Mind and selects responses via an ensemble mechanism. The expression module then generates emotion-controllable videos that jointly synthesize speaker speech and facial expressions with listener reactive behaviors, capturing bidirectional dynamics absent in prior work. We further construct a hierarchical Persona-Scenario dataset with psychologically grounded personas and private social goals to support evaluation under information asymmetry. Experiments on this dataset demonstrate competitive or superior performance on both dialogue quality and video generation metrics. Notably, our method surpasses even the full-information Script mode on key dialogue quality dimensions, suggesting that explicit mental state inference under uncertainty can elicit more thoughtful dialogue than unrestricted information access. Project page: https://resonantminds.github.io/.

Role-playing language agents (RPLAs) simulate specific characters and personas across applications such as entertainment, companionship, interactive storytelling, and education. Faithful role-play requires more than producing plausible, in-character responses: as a character's values and behavior change over a narrative, an RPLA should reflect the character's state at the relevant stage. However, existing benchmarks largely treat characters as fixed personas or test only what they know at a given point in the narrative. We introduce ArcANE (Arc-Aware Narrative Evaluation), a benchmark for evaluating whether an RPLA follows a character's development across a narrative. ArcANE first builds an Arc that maps how a character's values, motivations, or relationships change over the story. The benchmark then scores how well an RPLA's responses fit the corresponding stages of the Arc, covering three distinct scenario types: scenes from the novel, new situations within its world, and situations outside that world. We evaluate six models under six ways of providing narrative context. In every model, using the Arc up to the queried chapter yields the best performance, outperforming the strongest non-Arc context by 2.2-8.4 points. These results suggest that faithful role-play requires evolving character states and tracking their trajectory, rather than merely retrieving relevant episodic evidence.

Motivational architectures in cognitive AI have largely been designed for physical agents regulating bodily needs. Conversational agents operate in a different regime: their sensorimotor loop is linguistic, their environment is a user's evolving mental state, and their consequential actions are speech acts, tool invocations, and strategic silences. This paper proposes a conversational reinterpretation of the OpenPsi motivational lineage, coupled to MetaMo's higher-level motivational scaffold, for agents built on a modular execution substrate. Homeostasis is recast in dialogue-native terms: the agent regulates competence, uncertainty reduction, affiliation, affinity, legitimacy, nurturing, and aesthetic coherence rather than bodily deficits. We propose three contributions: a ten-stage motivational processing pipeline that architecturally separates cognitive modulation from situational appraisal; a dual decision strategy blending urgency-driven fast response with deliberative multi-goal optimization; and an architecturally useful distinction between pre-action feelings and post-action emotions as functionally different forms of affect. We specialize the framework to two example agents -- CompanionAgent and ResearchAgent -- and sketch its extension to social robotics and domain-generic human-level AGI.

Large language models can shift human beliefs across high-stakes domains, but most persuasion studies rely on pre/post belief change. These endpoint measures identify whether persuasion occurred, yet miss where and how beliefs moved within a dialogue. We present PERSUASIONTRACE, a framework for studying persuasion in human-LLM interaction. Built on a web-based experimental platform, PERSUASIONTRACE contributes a tool for multi-turn persuasion studies and a process-level evaluation protocol: it records multi-turn belief reports from human or simulated targets of persuasion, annotates persuader turns with rhetorical dimensions (logos/pathos/ethos), and evaluates simulators by fidelity to real human belief dynamics. Using this framework, we find that human targets group into two clusters of multi-turn belief updates and exhibit susceptibility to rhetorical strategies, and that LLMs are persuasive across generic and personalized topics, text and audio modalities, and multi-turn interactions. Prior work has chiefly used vanilla-prompted LLMs to simulate human targets, but we show that these simulators fail to replicate human belief dynamics. We introduce a Bayesian-network simulated target that maintains an explicit latent belief state over time so each persuader message yields cognitively realistic belief updates. In human-likeness evaluation, our Bayesian target scores near a human reference (81 vs 80), while baseline LLM targets score substantially lower (64). PERSUASIONTRACE reframes persuasion evaluation from endpoint movement alone to process fidelity, providing a stronger basis for scientific analysis and safer optimization of persuasive systems.

Multi-party dialogue is a critical setting for studying collaborative reasoning and decision-making, yet existing datasets rarely focus on structured, in-depth complex reasoning tasks. We introduce DeliChess, a novel dataset of group deliberation dialogues in which participants collaboratively solve multiple-choice chess puzzles. Each group first completes the puzzle individually, then engages in a multi-party discussion before submitting a revised collective answer. The dataset includes 107 dialogues with full transcripts, pre- and post-discussion choices, and metadata on puzzle difficulty and move quality. We evaluate performance using three metrics based on chess engine evaluations, and find that deliberation significantly improves group accuracy. We further analyse the role of probing utterances (i.e., messages that elicit proposals, justifications, or strategic reflection) using a classifier trained on prior deliberation data. While probing makes group performance more variable after discussion, it does not consistently lead to better performance. Our dataset offers a rich testbed for modelling group reasoning, dialogue dynamics, and the resolution of differing perspectives and opinions in a well-defined strategic domain.

Lifelong digital companions must integrate cross-session cues, continually update their understanding of users, and adapt to shifting privacy boundaries. Existing evaluations fail to capture this, testing memory recall and short-term empathy in isolation. To bridge this gap, we introduce \benchmark, a benchmark centered on multi-session \textit{Memory-Emotion-Environment} loops. By modeling users as persistent worlds with layered profiles and event trajectories, \benchmark uses multi-agent simulation to project environmental dynamics into dialogue, preserving the critical gap between latent thoughts and observable expressions. Evaluating 2,000 personas and 111K tasks across memory tracking, user understanding, privacy control, and emotional companionship, our experiment results reveal a stark reality: even models that saturate current memory benchmarks fail to sustain accurate user understanding and true companionship over long horizons.

With the widespread adoption of multi-modal communication platforms, long-form dialogues interleaving text and images have become increasingly common. Users often need to retrieve coherent dialogue fragments related to specific topics, rather than isolated utterances. We propose Fine-grained Fragment Retrieval (FFR), which locates semantically relevant multi-utterance, multi-image fragments in multi-modal long-form dialogues. We explore two settings: (1) FFR within Single-Dialogue, retrieving fragments from a given dialogue; and (2) FFR within Dialogue Corpus, retrieving from a large-scale corpus for open-domain scenarios. For (1), we introduce F2RVLM, a generation-based retrieval model trained with reinforcement learning, using multi-objective rewards and difficulty-aware curriculum sampling to enhance fragment coherence. For (2), we develop FFRS, a two-stage system combining offline fragment-level indexing with online retrieval. Specifically, each dialogue is decomposed into minimal semantic fragments encoded by a Fragment Embedding Model (FEM) into a vector database; at inference, FEM rapidly recalls Top-K candidates, and F2RVLM performs fine-grained reasoning to identify the most relevant sub-content. To support FFR, we construct MLDR, the longest multi-modal dialogue retrieval dataset to date, and a WeChat-based real-world test set. Experiments on both benchmarks demonstrate that F2RVLM and FFRS consistently achieve superior performance across single-dialogue and corpus-level FFR.

Public discourse and emerging policy typically assume that AI emotional support is a deliberate act: a lonely user consciously seeking comfort from a dedicated companion chatbot. In this paper, we draw on emerging empirical evidence and argue that this picture is inaccurate on two accounts, both in how AI emotional support arises and how it shapes future behavior. First, AI emotional support commonly emerges incidentally within task-oriented interactions on general-purpose platforms, much as workplace friendships deepen through collaboration. Second, these incidental encounters are path-dependent: positive experiences of AI emotional support update people's beliefs about AI's emotional capabilities and redirect their choices for future emotional support, increasing preference for AI and decreasing preference for humans. We review recent evidence, including a large-scale longitudinal study conducted in collaboration with OpenAI, showing that daily five-minute conversations with an AI about personal issues over 28 days led to a 10.3% decrease in the preference for seeking support from humans and an 11.6% increase in the preference for AI. These findings suggest that current policy, focused on companion apps and isolated interactions, cannot adequately protect human connection. Instead, effective regulations should extend to general-purpose AI systems and address cumulative, trajectory-level changes in how people seek support. Recognizing how people stumble into AI emotional support and how those encounters redirect human connections over time is essential to safeguarding human well-being.

We present DeepSpeak-Agentic, a dataset of videos comprising over 37 hours of semi-structured conversations between a human and an embodied AI agent. We use this dataset to evaluate the automatic forensic identification (audio, video, or text) of AI agents, study the nature of human-agent interactions, and provide a benchmark for future advances in the large-language models and AI-generated voices and faces that power embodied AI agents. We also contribute a scalable data-capture system that creates agents, automatically pairs them with human crowd workers, records audiovisual conversations across specified scenarios, and identifies and separates the human and agent in the combined stream.

Prior work has shown that instruction-tuned large language models (LLMs) are less well calibrated than their base pre-trained counterparts. However, little is known about the frequently used chat template's effect on the calibration of conversational LLMs. In this work, we investigate the mechanisms driving this miscalibration by decoupling the effects of the post-training algorithm and the chat format. We find that, while instruction tuning fundamentally harms calibration, the chat template aggravates the issue through an "ownership bias" -- models are significantly more confident in their own answers than in identical answers provided by a user. Extensive experiments across six recent open-weight LLMs, three benchmarks, and three confidence elicitation methods show that models assign up to 26% higher confidence to their own responses. Leveraging this insight, we propose a simple inference-time strategy: framing the model's answer as user input during confidence elicitation. This approach significantly reduces overconfidence and improves calibration by up to 26% without the need for retraining, narrowing the gap between base and instruction-tuned models.

Despite great advances in tool-use capabilities of large language models (LLMs), existing evaluation benchmarks struggle to fully align with real-world scenarios. Such benchmarks mostly rely on simulated idealized user assumptions and lacks experience-oriented evaluation. These limitations fail to account for the ambiguity, uncooperative behaviors, and shifting intentions characteristic of real-world users. To fill this gap, we propose RUT-Bench, a dedicated benchmark designed to assess LLMs under diverse Real-world User Tool calling scenarios. RUT-Bench supports high-fidelity simulations covering both ideal rational patterns and heterogeneous non-ideal behaviors across single-turn and multi-turn dialogues. We conduct comprehensive evaluations on 19 widely adopted open-source and proprietary LLMs using our benchmark. Experimental results reveal that no tested LLMs achieve an overall success rate above 40%, and nearly all of them experience noticeable performance drops when facing more complicated non-ideal user inputs. Our code and data is available at https://github.com/Miaow-Lab/RUT-Bench.

Document-grounded dialogue systems (DGDS) utilize knowledge from external documents to answer domain-specific user questions. Existing solutions typically divide documents into independent passages for retrieval and response generation. This approach, however, neither makes good use of structural information within documents nor provides enough (document) context for knowledge selection and responses. This paper proposes SF-Re2G to address such issues systematically. Firstly, we seek to improve a passage representation by contrasting it with others of the same section, thus improving the retrieval performance. Secondly, a structure-enhanced reranker is built, leveraging the fact that multiple grounding passages of one dialog turn tend to be in the same neighborhood. Specifically, candidates from the retrieval are grouped into subgraphs according to the document structure. The reranker will rescore the candidate integrating its group information. Finally, the chosen passages are used for responses, taking into account the subgraph context for better generation. Experimental results on two DGDS datasets validate our method for both Chinese and English.

Multi-turn jailbreak attacks on large language models (LLMs) reveal a mismatch in current guardrails: they operate on individual turns, while attacks unfold as trajectories across conversations. We propose a shift from content to dynamics, modeling conversations as paths in representation space and asking whether adversarial intent is encoded early in their geometry. We introduce PsychoPass, a framework that extracts geometric features from conversation trajectories in embedding space to predict a potential attack before harmful content is produced. These features achieve near-perfect performance in naïve classifiers, which is largely explained by the inclusion of number of turns as a feature. After removing this confound, a smaller but consistent geometric signal remains, with classification performance that does not depend meaningfully on encoder choice. Crucially, this signal appears early in the conversation: attack outcomes remain above chance from short prefixes alone, more reliably than baseline guardrails. A supporting theoretical analysis explains these findings via a decomposition of length and shape, a detection bound based on prefix length, and encoder invariance. Together, these results show that adversarial conversations leave an early, representation-robust geometric fingerprint suitable for online monitoring.

Are utterances by AI chatbots meaningful? Concretely, if a user asks, say, Anthropic's agent Claude, "What is the capital of Spain?" and Claude answers, "Madrid is the capital of Spain," does that sentence have its ordinary meaning -- and does it express a true proposition? Most ordinary users, as well as AI engineers, take the answer to be trivially "yes." However, many cognitive scientists, linguists, and philosophers of language argue that dominant intentionalist accounts of language and meaning deliver the opposite conclusion. Theorists more sympathetic to ordinary users' intuitions have therefore advocated a radical "de-anthropomorphization" of language, revising our understanding of mental states, intentions, and semantic content to capture the intuition that the outputs of LLMs are meaningful. We take a different approach. While we, too, argue that LLM outputs are meaningful, we contend that a proper theory of human language already applies, as is, to current chatbots. Meaning is a low bar: claiming that LLM outputs are meaningful does not require positing mental states, intentions, rationality, or the cognitive capacities requisite for communication in LLMs -- or, indeed, making any other anthropomorphic assumptions. People do have communicative intentions (typically successful ones), but nevertheless, even in humans, language production can depart from what the speaker has in mind. Our view has important consequences for how we should theorize about -- and critically engage with -- both human linguistic output and synthetically generated text. In particular, to say that chatbots produce meaningful text is not by any means to endorse what they output, or to assume that the technology is (or is not) good, powerful, appropriate, or useful.

When large language models (LLMs) are used in high-stakes scenarios, such as legal, medical and financial advice, even a single conversation history is enough to drive differences in outcomes between users. Prior work has demonstrated that this results in outcome disparities between sociodemographic groups, with some groups receiving more advantageous outcomes than others. In this work, we demonstrate that LLMs actually struggle to infer user sociodemographics from a single conversation history and that although there are disparities between sociodemographic groups, they are minimal in magnitude. To investigate what the main driver of these disparities is, we compare user sociodemographics to a range of (psycho)linguistic features of conversations, including conversation topic, emotions, and readability. We find that conversation topics are most predictive of LLM-generated advice within a conversational context, which, to some extent, function as proxies for sociodemographic groups and often affect advice in unpredictable ways. This is cause for concern and highlights the need for future research to better understand and, if needed, mitigate the effect of conversational context on LLM outputs in high-stakes scenarios.

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 evidence shows that people with eating disorders (EDs) are increasingly seeking guidance, advice, and emotional support from Large Language Model (LLM)-based chat systems. Although these systems are not designed to provide clinical advice, their perceived expertise, neutrality and accessibility make them a frequent, albeit risky, source of support. This paper investigates potential patterns of interaction between users with EDs and LLMs, focusing on the potential harms arising from models that uncritically adapt to, and facilitate unsafe or self-harming user requests. We find, in consultation with clinical ED experts, that specific linguistic cues in prompts increase the likelihood of unsafe responses and, through systematically varying the degree of potential risk present in the user prompt, report the extent to which LLMs uncritically adapt to problematic, and potentially dangerous user inputs.

Large language models (LLMs) can serve as helpful assistants, yet they can equally function as harm amplifiers that enable malicious users to achieve harmful outcomes beyond their capabilities through extended interactions. This risk manifests along two axes, i.e., democratizing domain expertise that allows novices to produce specialized harmful content, and scaling harmful operations at volumes that manual effort cannot match. Existing works, however, often overlook how LLMs compound harm across multi-turn conversations. We introduce HarmAmp, a new benchmark for multi-turn harm amplification scenarios spanning twelve risk categories. Each scenario is grounded in real-world threats and satisfies rigorous criteria, i.e., substantive amplification, operational specificity, and multi-turn necessity. We further propose TrajSafe, a proactive monitor that anticipates harmful trajectories and intervenes through actions such as probing users' genuine intents and steering the models towards safer completion. Our extensive experiments demonstrate that TrajSafe significantly reduces the harmfulness incurred in multi-turn interactions while preserving a low over-refusal rate and the target model's general capabilities. Our work offers a promising paradigm to alleviate the nuanced safety risks in LLM interactions.

We introduce the Image Reconstruction Game, a fully automated benchmark in which a vision-language model issues corrective instructions to an image generator across multiple turns, making accumulated common ground directly observable as a rendered image. Benchmarking two Describer models crossed with two Generator models across seven image categories, we find that the describer is the dominant factor in reconstruction quality, while the generator determines whether iterative refinement helps or hurts. Mathematical and geometric images pose the greatest challenge. The describer's token budget strongly affects convergence: shorter budgets yield sparser first renderings with more room for visible improvement, while longer budgets raise absolute quality but leave less to fix. Stronger describers use a richer correction vocabulary spanning spatial, numeric, and structural categories, while weaker describers concentrate on surface properties and tend to stop after a few turns. Human validation shows that the best automated judge reaches only slight-to-fair agreement with human preferences, and automated scores require human recalibration to be used reliably.

Multi-turn jailbreak attacks pose a growing threat to LLMs by exploiting conversational dynamics such as gradual escalation and cross-turn coordination. Existing defenses either rely on costly retraining -- often degrading model utility -- or apply single-turn analysis independently at each turn, failing to capture how risk accumulates along interaction trajectories. We observe that safety behavior in multi-turn interaction is trajectory-dependent: dialogue history continuously reshapes the model's conditioning context, making it insufficient to evaluate each turn in isolation. Motivated by this insight, we present THRD, the first training-free framework that explicitly models temporal risk accumulation for multi-turn jailbreak defense. THRD integrates four modules: a Turn-level Risk Assessor (TRA) for instantaneous risk estimation, a Historical Context Analyzer (HCA) for cross-turn intent escalation detection, a Response Evaluator (RE) for identifying facilitative outputs, and a Decision Module that combines these signals through a time-evolving scoring mechanism with attenuation-based modulation and trend-aware adjustment. Experiments against state-of-the-art multi-turn attacks -- including tree-search-based and multi-agent collaborative methods -- across two target models show that THRD reduces ASR to 0.2--4.0% while preserving model utility within 1.5% degradation on MMLU and GSM8K. Ablation studies confirm non-redundant module contributions and stable cross-architecture generalization. Analysis of first rejection triggers reveals that over 70% of multi-turn attacks require Turn~2 or later to detect, validating the necessity of explicit temporal aggregation.

Time series data inform critical decisions across many real-world domains. While large language model (LLM) agents can analyze data through natural language and tools, it remains unclear whether they can conduct reliable time series analysis across multi-turn conversations. Existing benchmarks focus on single-step tasks such as forecasting and anomaly detection, overlooking practical workflows where user goals evolve, agents must build on prior analyses, and conclusions emerge from accumulated evidence. In this work, we introduce TimeSage-MT, a multi-turn benchmark for agentic time series reasoning with 240 tasks and 2,680 dialogue turns across 8 real-world domains, spanning basic exploration to decision-oriented analysis. TimeSage-MT is built through a reproducible pipeline that converts real-world time series data into multi-turn conversations with verifiable answers. It provides a unified evaluation protocol and public leaderboard for comparing time series agentic systems. To demonstrate the benchmark's utility, we evaluate frontier LLMs alongside TimeSage, a novel structured agent equipped with a comprehensive time series skill library. The results show sharp performance drops on decision-oriented tasks, driven by failures in memory, uncertainty handling, and domain-based decision making. TimeSage-MT exposes critical gaps in current agentic reasoning and provides a rigorous foundation for future development.

We present GuidaPA, a privacy-preserving chatbot for the Italian Public Administration (PA) trained via Federated Learning (FL) on documentation from two national PA platforms, SIGESON and SIDFORS. Our corpus includes approximately 8 pages of SIGESON manuals and 31 pages of SIDFORS manuals/FAQs; while this study uses public documentation as a safe proxy, the intended deployment extends to restricted internal sources (e.g., tickets, officer manuals, database extracts) that can not be centrally pooled due to regulatory and organizational constraints. GuidaPA integrates role-based access control, secure client-side preprocessing, explicit monitoring of non-IID effects, and parameter-efficient federated fine-tuning of large language models. Using QLoRA (4-bit) over 15 federated rounds with an 80/20 train-test split per client, we evaluate answer quality with ROUGE, BLEU-4, and METEOR. The best federated model achieves ROUGE-1/2/L of 61.10/55.77/59.44, BLEU-4 of 45.02, and METEOR of 63.94-close to private centralized fine-tuning while keeping data on-site. Compared to the general-purpose baseline, domain fine-tuning improves ROUGE-1 from 41.45 to 62.18 and BLEU-4 from 26.97 to 50.90. Overall, the results indicate that FL can deliver high-quality conversational AI for public services without centralized data sharing

Despite substantial progress in long-context modeling, existing benchmarks remain confined to factual memory for explicit recall, failing to measure the reflective memory required to synthesize fragmented, multimodal cues into high-level interpretations. To address this gap, we introduce RefMem-Bench, a benchmark for reflective memory in long-horizon dialogue. RefMem-Bench contains 26K annotated QA instances with eight reflective-memory dimensions and three task formats, requiring models to move beyond surface-level retrieval and infer latent meanings from evidence distributed across interaction histories. To enhance reflective memory capability, we propose REflective Memory INDuction (REMIND), a hierarchical framework that treats reflective memory as progressive meaning construction. REMIND couples question-conditioned evidence retrieval, salience-aware grounding, and abstraction-level supervision, and uses Progressive Reflective Alignment to distill high-level reflective reasoning into the factual inference pathway. Experiments show RefMem-Bench poses a substantial challenge to current models, while REMIND consistently improves both answer accuracy and memory recall through progressive evidence perception, grounding, and abstraction.

Recent advances in agentic AI have enabled agents to complete complex tasks through tool use, reasoning, and multi-step planning. Yet existing benchmarks evaluate agents within a single session, ignoring past actions, stated preferences, and prior decisions that agents must integrate to fulfill personalized user goals. We introduce Momento, a benchmark for persistent agentic task completion in multi-session service environments, requiring agents to take consequential, tool-mediated actions while resolving temporal dependencies and evolving user goals across sessions. Experimental results reveal that current agents fail primarily through misestimation of user state, treating prior session history as a reliable proxy for current context rather than stale information requiring re-validation, highlighting a substantial gap between current agent capabilities and realistic long-horizon human-agent interaction.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) demonstrate remarkable visual understanding, yet their reliability in interactive settings is severely undermined by hallucination snowballing: a phenomenon where initial errors amplify across conversational turns, leading to a collapse in coherence. This failure reveals a fundamental vulnerability where models progressively neglect visual grounding in favor of over-relying on polluted textual history. Existing benchmarks are predominantly confined to single-turn VQA, which fail to capture the complex dynamics of error propagation in long-horizon interactions. To address this, we introduce MM-Snowball, the first benchmark for fine-grained diagnosis of hallucination snowballing within dialogues. Extensive evaluation shows that our benchmark poses a significant challenge even to advanced MLLMs and reveals the inefficacy of existing mitigation methods designed for single-turn VQA. To counteract this degradation, we propose Conflict-Aware Visual Rectification (CAVR). This training-free method mitigates snowballing through a synergistic dual-mechanism that refreshes visual grounding at the representation level and rectifies output distributions at the logit level, effectively re-anchoring the model to visual facts. Experiments demonstrate that CAVR achieves state-of-the-art performance, offering a promising path toward more reliable interactive AI. Data and code are available at: https://frenkie-chiang.github.io/MM-Snowball

Conversational automatic speech recognition in Hungarian is constrained by the limited amount of publicly available dialogue-style training data. The BEA-Dialogue corpus addresses this need, but its strictly speaker-disjoint train/dev/eval split reduces the usable material to only 85 hours. In this paper, we introduce BEA-Dialogue+, an expanded version of the corpus that relaxes the split criterion for experimenters and dialogue partners while preserving complete separation of the primary speakers. This results in 200 hours of transcribed natural conversations and enables a controlled study of the trade-off between additional training data and speaker overlap across the splits. We evaluate several Whisper- and FastConformer-based models on both corpus versions, including Serialized Output Training (SOT)-based fine-tuning for dialogue transcription. Our results show that the larger corpus is more challenging for models without fine-tuning, whereas SOT-based adaptation yields consistent improvements in WER, CER, cpWER, and cpCER. Overall, BEA-Dialogue+ provides a substantially larger yet still demanding benchmark for Hungarian dialogue ASR, and a practical resource for training and evaluating dialogue transcription systems.

Self-play can train language models without external supervision. However, existing methods require rule-checkable answers, leaving open-ended tasks dependent on curated prompts or frontier-model judges. We introduce SCOPE, a data-free self-play framework for open-ended tasks that co-evolves two policies: a Challenger that generates document-grounded tasks, and a Solver that answers them through multi-turn retrieval. A frozen copy of the initial model serves as the self-judge, which writes task-specific rubrics from the source document and grades Solver responses against them. Across three 7-8B instruction-tuned models (Qwen2.5, Qwen3, OLMo-3), SCOPE improves open-ended performance by up to +10.4 points on eight benchmarks and matches or exceeds GRPO_data trained on ~9K curated prompts. Although trained only on open-ended tasks, SCOPE also improves held-out short-form QA by up to +13.8 points on seven held-out benchmarks, surpassing GRPO_data on all three models. Ablations show that co-evolving the Challenger is necessary to keep tasks near the Solver's frontier, that gains arise from improvements in both retrieval and synthesis with the relative contribution varying by task, and that rubric generation quality is the bottleneck for self-judging.

Robots operating in diverse environments rely on visual input to interpret objects and spatial layouts. In human-collaborative tasks, they are expected to communicate this understanding through language. Vision-language models (VLMs) support robotic tasks involving visual interpretation, question answering, and instruction following, but their capabilities in collaborative dialogue tasks requiring spatial reasoning remain underexplored. We study this gap through a collaborative structure-building task that combines visual interpretation, grounding, language-guided interaction, and action generation. We develop a framework in which VLMs use dialogue to reconstruct a target structure from visual and textual inputs. We evaluate open-weight and closed VLMs across interaction settings, input modalities, and image representations. Results show that spatial reasoning over visual representations remains difficult for the evaluated VLMs. Detailed text representations of the target yield higher reconstruction success across modality conditions, while decomposed image representations improve performance. These findings reveal limits in visual spatial grounding and grounded instruction generation for collaborative VLM agents.

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.

The use of Generative AI Conversational User Interfaces (CUI) as a new way to access and analyze data is growing in all sectors, and the industrial one is no exception. There, large amounts of data produced by IoT devices are flowing through user interfaces and may require them a new adaptation to the new analyses needs of decision-makers. LLM-based CUIs are promising a new way to directly interact with those data through the directness of natural language and without the learning costs that every GUI design has. Moreover, the capabilities of LLMs and their agency open up the possibility to automate some tasks and help with the reasoning during decision-making activities. But are this promises well founded? We try to scope this general question with a mixed-approach study comparing a state-of-the-art dashboard with a conversational agent. A total of 20 participants used both interfaces to complete four simulated industrial decision tasks of varying complexity. We combined measures of mental workload, completion time, and decision accuracy with a post-study questionnaire and semi-structured interviews analyzed through thematic analysis. The findings suggest that the conversational agent can reduce interactional effort by supporting more direct access to information, while the dashboard remains valuable for overview and verification. However, these benefits may vary across tasks and require validation through larger-scale studies.

In existing memory benchmarks for Large Language Models (LLMs), the evaluated dialogue sessions often lack long-term semantic consistency, and the underlying personas tend to be flat and static. Furthermore, in real-world scenarios, interactions between users and assistants involve more diverse, heterogeneous data streams, such as documents and emails. These shortcomings significantly limit the realism and effectiveness of current evaluations. To address these limitations, we introduce RHELM (Realistic, Heterogeneous, and Evolving Long-term Memory). Driven by meticulously crafted user profiles and a novel LOOP (pLan-rOllout-evOlve-Prune) module, we construct realistic dialogues across diverse interaction scenarios that exhibit dynamic temporal evolution and long-term coherence. Crucially, these dialogues are deeply integrated with heterogeneous external sources synchronized with the user's temporal event trajectory. The resulting benchmark encompasses challenging question-answer pairs spanning seven inquiry types, with each question mapping to at least one of 27 critical memory characteristics that we identify as essential yet underexplored in current research. Comprehensive experiments across full-context models, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) methods, and representative memory frameworks reveal that contemporary approaches still expose critical weaknesses in complex, real-world settings, particularly in resolving multi-source aggregation and real-world contextual reasoning.

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.

Creating spoken dialogue datasets is methodologically challenging, and these challenges are amplified when the goal is to build multilingual, multi-parallel datasets at scale. This work introduces HEALTHDIAL, a large-scale, multilingual, and multi-parallel dataset for developing and evaluating retrieval-augmented generation (RAG)-based spoken dialogue systems. The dataset comprises 6,000 information-seeking dialogues (1,500 per language) grounded in trusted content from the World Health Organization (WHO) and 163 hours of user speech recorded from native speakers of diverse dialects across four official WHO languages: Arabic, Chinese, English, and Spanish. Each speaker is annotated with demographic (e.g., gender, age) and sociolinguistic (e.g., primary language, region of origin) variables. We report benchmark results across key dialogue tasks, which reveal consistent performance disparities across languages, even among high-resource ones. To support future research, we release the dataset, a prototype system, and a toolkit for data collection and system evaluation.

We present AutoformBot, a multi-agent system for building an Autoformalized Textbook Library At Scale (Atlas) in Lean 4. AutoformBot orchestrates thousands of LLM agents, equipped with formal verification tools, dependency-aware task scheduling, and collaborative version control, to translate informal textbook prose into machine-checked definitions and proofs. We apply our methods to a corpus of 26 open-access textbooks spanning analysis, algebra, topology, combinatorics, and probability, producing Atlas: a verified library of over 45,000 Lean 4 declarations and 500 thousand lines of code. We release two artifacts: (i) AutoformBot, the open-source multi-agent framework; and (ii) Atlas, the resulting formal library. Our results suggest that autoformalizing the core content of graduate-level mathematics at scale is now economically and technically feasible. This opens the door to the automated verification of both human- and machine-generated mathematics at a research level.

User satisfaction with AI assistants is highly personalized: the same response may satisfy one user but disappoint another depending on what each user expects and what they have asked for before. Existing automatic evaluation methods mostly measure generic response quality, making it difficult to judge whether a response satisfies a user at a specific turn. We study this problem as personalized turn-level user conversation satisfaction evaluation. We build a conversation satisfaction evaluator that combines compact user memories with target-turn context to produce satisfaction scores and dissatisfaction-oriented rationales. Meta-evaluation against human satisfaction annotations shows that personalized memory and post-hoc score calibration improve ordinal agreement and dissatisfied-turn detection over supervised, retrieval-based, and generic LLM-as-a-judge baselines. We further introduce PersTurnBench, a personalized turn-level user conversation satisfaction benchmark that uses the verified evaluator to assess generation models via replay. By holding the replay state fixed, PersTurnBench enables controlled comparison of generic generation models and memory-augmented personalized systems without new human labels for every candidate model. The evaluator and benchmark let researchers compare candidate generation models on personalized satisfaction without collecting new user feedback for every model.

As LLMs become increasingly integrated into daily life, understanding how their presence will shape human linguistic behavior is an open question. We present a large-scale study of linguistic convergence in human-LLM dialogue, examining how humans and LLMs accommodate each other's linguistic style during multi-turn conversations. Using an asymmetric convergence metric on WildChat, a corpus of real-world ChatGPT transcripts, we find that while LLMs significantly overconverge toward their users on both function word and open-class features across eight languages, human convergence rates in this setting are broadly consistent with human-human baselines. These findings suggest that accommodation in human-LLM dialogue is asymmetric: while LLMs dramatically overfit to their users' style, humans linguistically accommodate LLMs no differently than they would another person.