Conversational AI

Effective collaboration between embodied agents requires more than acting in a shared environment; it demands communication grounded in each agent's evolving understanding of the world. When agents can only partially observe their surroundings, coordination without communication is provably hard, but communication can, in principle, bridge this gap by allowing agents to share observations and align their world models. In this work, we examine whether LLM-based embodied agents actually realize the ability to communicate. We extend PARTNR, a benchmark for collaborative household robotics, with a natural-language dialogue channel that enables two agents with partial observability to communicate during task execution. To evaluate whether dialogue leads to genuine world-model alignment rather than superficial coordination, we propose a framework for measuring world-model alignment defined over per-agent world graphs: observation convergence (do private world models align over time?), information novelty (do messages convey what the partner lacks?), and belief-sensitive messaging (do agents model what their partner knows?). Our experiments across three LLMs reveal that dialogue reduces action conflicts 40 to 83 percentage points but degrades task success relative to silent coordination. Using our metrics, we characterize the gap between superficial coordination and genuine world-model alignment, and identify where current models fall on this spectrum. Project Website: https://uiuc-conversational-ai-lab.github.io/partnr-dial-wmd/

The emergence of multi-agent systems introduces novel moderation challenges that extend beyond content filtering. Agents with malicious intent may contribute harmful content that appears benign to evade content-based moderation, while compromising the system through exploitative and malicious behavior manifested across their overall interaction patterns within the community. To address this, we introduce BOT-MOD (BOT-MODeration), a moderation framework that grounds detection in agent intent rather than traditional content level signals. BOT-MOD identifies the underlying intent by engaging with the target agent in a multi-turn exchange guided by Gibbs-based sampling over candidate intent hypotheses. This progressively narrows the space of plausible agent objectives to identify the underlying behavior. To evaluate our approach, we construct a dataset derived from Moltbook that encompasses diverse benign and malicious behaviors based on actual community structures, posts, and comments. Results demonstrate that BOT-MOD reliably identifies agent intent across a range of adversarial configurations, while maintaining a low false positive rate on benign behaviors. This work advances the foundation for scalable, intent-aware moderation of agents in open multi-agent environments.

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 increasingly used as reasoning modules in many applications. While they are efficient in certain tasks, LLMs often struggle to produce human-aligned solutions. Human-aligned decision making requires accounting for both explicitly stated goals and latent user preferences that shape how ambiguous situations should be resolved. Existing approaches to incorporating such preferences either rely on extensive and repeated user interactions or fail to generalize latent preferences across tasks and contexts, limiting their practical applicability. We consider a setting in which an LLM is used for high-level reasoning and is responsible for inferring latent user preferences from limited interactions, which guides downstream decision making. We introduce CLIPR (Conversational Learning for Inferring Preferences and Reasoning), a framework that learns actionable, transferable natural language rules that represent latent user preferences from minimal conversational input. These rules are iteratively refined through adaptive feedback and applied to both in-distribution and out-of-distribution ambiguous tasks across multiple environments. Evaluations on three datasets and a user study show that CLIPR consistently outperforms existing methods in improving alignment and reducing inference costs.

Large language model (LLM)-based simulations of clinical patients are increasingly used for research and training, yet their validity requires persona stability: coherent maintenance of an assigned psychological profile across and within conversations. We evaluate this prerequisite using eating disorder personas grounded in five published case vignettes, a dual-assessment framework (self-report + independent observer ratings), and validated psychometric instruments (EDE-Q) with known ground-truth scores. Across six LLMs and two experiments (between-conversation stability (Exp. I) and within-conversation stability (Exp. II)), we find that LLMs are paradoxically too stable and too inaccurate: variability is negligible, yet all models systematically overshoot ground-truth severity by 12-30% of the scale range (0.7-1.8 points on a 0-6 scale). The mechanism is selective stereotyping: models differentiate cases on behavioural items (dietary restraint) but maximise cognitive-affective items (body dissatisfaction, weight preoccupation) at ceiling regardless of case severity. Additional conversational context does not improve accuracy; it compounds the overshoot. LLMs can portray severe eating pathology but lack a representation of moderate clinical presentations, a "missing middle".

A target-guided proactive dialogue system aims to steer conversations proactively toward pre-defined targets, such as designated keywords or specific topics. During guided conversations, dynamically modeling conversational scenarios and intent keywords to guide system utterance generation is beneficial; however, existing work largely overlooks this aspect, resulting in a mismatch with the dynamics of real-world conversations. In this paper, we jointly model user profiles and domain knowledge as conversational scenarios to introduce a scenario bias that dynamically influences system utterances, and employ intent-keyword bridging to predict intent keywords for upcoming dialogue turns, providing higher level and more flexible guidance. Extensive automatic and human evaluations demonstrate the effectiveness of conversational scenario modeling and intent keyword bridging, yielding substantial improvements in proactivity, fluency, and informativeness for target-guided proactive dialogue systems, thereby narrowing the gap with real world interactions.

Generative AI models differ from traditional machine learning tools in that they allow users to provide as much or as little information as they choose in their inputs. This flexibility often leads users to omit certain details, relying on the models to infer and fill in under-specified information based on distributional knowledge of user preferences. Such inferences may privilege majority viewpoints and disadvantage users with atypical preferences, raising concerns about fairness. Unlike more traditional recommender systems, LLMs can explicitly solicit more information from users through natural language. However, while directly eliciting user preferences could increase personalization and mitigate inequality, excessive querying places a burden on users who value efficiency. We develop a stylized model of user-LLM interaction and develop an objective that captures tradeoff between user burden and preference representation. Building on the observation that individual preferences are often correlated, we analyze how AI systems should balance inference and elicitation, characterizing the optimal amount of information to solicit before content generation. Ultimately, we show that information elicitation can mitigate the systematic biases of preference inference, enabling the design of generative tools that better incorporate diverse user perspectives while maintaining efficiency. We complement this theoretical analysis with an empirical evaluation illustrating the model's predictions and exploring their practical implications.

The advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has enabled their application in personalized dialogue systems. We present an extended annotation scheme for personal fact classification that addresses limitations in existing approaches, particularly PeaCoK. Our scheme introduces new categories (Demographics, Possessions) and attributes (Duration, Validity, Followup) that enable structured storage, quality filtering, and identification of facts suitable for dialogue continuation. We manually annotated 2,779 facts from Multi-Session Chat and trained a multi-head classifier based on transformer encoders. Combined with the Gemma-300M encoder, the classifier achieves $81.6 \pm 2.6$% macro F1, outperforming all few-shot LLM baselines (best: GPT-5.4-mini, 72.92%) by nearly 9 percentage points while requiring substantially fewer computational resources. Error analysis reveals persistent challenges in semantic boundary disambiguation, temporal aspect interpretation, and pragmatic reasoning for followup assessment. The dataset\footnotemark[1] and classifier\footnotemark[2] are publicly available.

Natural language understanding (NLU) is integral to task-oriented dialog systems, but demands a considerable amount of annotated training data to increase the coverage of diverse utterances. In this study, we report the construction of a linguistic resource named FIAD (Financial Annotated Dataset) and its use to generate a Korean annotated training data for NLU in the banking customer service (CS) domain. By an empirical examination of a corpus of banking app reviews, we identified three linguistic patterns occurring in Korean request utterances: TOPIC (ENTITY, FEATURE), EVENT, and DISCOURSE MARKER. We represented them in LGGs (Local Grammar Graphs) to generate annotated data covering diverse intents and entities. To assess the practicality of the resource, we evaluate the performances of DIET-only (Intent: 0.91 /Topic [entity+feature]: 0.83), DIET+ HANBERT (I:0.94/T:0.85), DIET+ KoBERT (I:0.94/T:0.86), and DIET+ KorBERT (I:0.95/T:0.84) models trained on FIAD-generated data to extract various types of semantic items.

Full-duplex spoken dialogue requires a model to keep listening while generating its own spoken response. This is challenging for large language models (LLMs), which are designed to extend a single coherent sequence and do not naturally support user input arriving during generation. We argue that how the user stream is routed into the LLM is therefore a key architectural question for full-duplex modeling. To study this question, we extend a text-only LLM into a unified full-duplex spoken dialogue system and compare two routing strategies under a shared training pipeline: (i) channel fusion, which injects the user stream directly into the LLM input, and (ii) cross-attention routing, which keeps the user stream as external memory accessed through cross-attention adapters. Experiments on spoken question answering and full-duplex interaction benchmarks reveal a clear tradeoff. Channel fusion yields stronger semantic grounding and consistently better question-answering performance. However, under semantically overlapping conditions such as user interruptions, it is more vulnerable to context corruption: if the model fails to stop in time, the overlapping user stream can interfere with ongoing generation and lead to semantically incoherent continuations. Cross-attention routing underperforms on question answering, but better preserves the LLM generation context and is more robust to this failure mode. These results establish user-stream routing as a central design axis in full-duplex spoken dialogue and offer practical guidance on the tradeoff between semantic integration and context robustness. We provide a demo page for qualitative inspection.

The key-value (KV) cache is a major bottleneck in long-context inference, where memory and computation grow with sequence length. Existing KV eviction methods reduce this cost but typically degrade performance relative to full-cache inference. Our key insight is that full-cache attention is not always optimal: in long contexts, irrelevant tokens can dilute attention away from useful evidence, so selective, learnable eviction can improve generation rather than merely approximate the full cache. We introduce a global retention-based KV eviction method that learns each token's future utility under a unified memory budget. Lightweight retention gates assign utility scores to cached KV entries, and a shared final scoring projection calibrates these scores across all layers and heads. This enables a single global eviction policy in which tokens from different layers, heads, and modalities compete directly for cache capacity. We further provide theoretical analysis showing that preferentially retaining useful tokens reduces attention dilution, and we justify geometric retention as a query-agnostic proxy for future utility. Across diverse long-context language and vision-language reasoning, and multi-turn dialogue benchmarks, our method substantially reduces KV memory while matching or surpassing full-cache inference. These results suggest that learned, globally calibrated KV eviction is not only a compression technique, but also a mechanism for improving long-context reasoning.

LLM agents are increasingly used to simulate real world interactions, but it remains unclear whether simulated behaviors preserve the content patterns and interaction dynamics of real human behaviors. Existing evaluations remain fragmented, which makes it difficult to compare systems or measure progress. In this paper, we focus on Reddit discussions as a concrete first step toward evaluating real-world social simulation. Reddit threads provide public, topic-grounded, multi-party interactions where people share experiences, debate, seek advice, express emotion, and collectively respond to products, events, and social issues. These discussions offer an observable window into broader social behavior, making them a useful setting for testing whether LLM agents can reproduce not only fluent text, but also the distributional patterns and interaction dynamics of real online communities. We introduce MiroBench, a benchmark for Reddit discussion simulation built from 4,292 real Reddit threads. MiroBench uses statistical tests to compare generated and real discussions across four major aspects: repetition and semantic uniformity, narrative content, toxicity and aggression, and structural complexity. Experiments across five domains and five models show that current simulators remain distributionally mismatched with real Reddit threads, while a lightweight prompt-based improvement procedure provides only limited gains. MiroBench offers a concrete benchmark for measuring, diagnosing, and improving realism in LLM-based social simulation.

Users interacting with Large Language Models (LLMs) in a multi-turn conversation routinely refine their requests or pivot to new topics. LLMs, however, often miss these topic shifts and carry over irrelevant context from previous turns, leading to inaccurate responses. In this paper, we stress-test the multi-turn understanding of LLMs and study the following two sub-tasks: (1) detecting whether the user pivots or refines in the current turn, and (2) shortlisting relevant context from previous turns. To this end, we construct synthetic benchmarks based on real-world datasets from varied domains, as to simulate context shifts of different levels of difficulty. We then evaluate the zero-shot performance of ten LLMs (open-weight, closed-source and reasoning), and demonstrate that only some reasoning and strongly instructed LLMs are accurate in detecting pivots; open-weight LLMs struggle with the task and frequently carry stale context even with explicit cues; and all models suffer from a position bias. Based on the results, we discuss key takeaways for improving long-term robustness in multi-turn capabilities for LLMs.

Most LLM benchmarks score how well a model responds to explicit requests. They leave unmeasured a different conversational ability: noticing and acting on needs the user has implied but not said. We call this \emph{conversational proactivity}. ProactBench decomposes it into three phase-tied types: \textsc{Emergent}, inference from a single disclosed anchor; \textsc{Critical}, synthesis across multiple anchors; and \textsc{Recovery}, grounded forward-looking value after task completion. We operationalise the benchmark with three agents: a Planner, a User Agent, and an Assistant Model. Their information asymmetries defend against style-confounded scoring, rubric leakage, external-context contamination, and information dumps. The released corpus contains 198 curated dialogues with 624 trigger points across 24 communication styles drawn from a psychometric inventory and audited by an independent LLM judge. Across 16 frontier and open-weight models, \textsc{Recovery} is both difficult and weakly predicted by six standard benchmarks, making it a useful new evaluation signal.

Deploying LLMs in multi-turn dialogues facilitates jailbreak attacks that distribute harmful intent across seemingly benign turns. Recent training-based multi-turn jailbreak methods learn long-horizon attack strategies from interaction feedback, but often rely on coarse trajectory-level outcome signals that broadcast uniformly to every turn. However, we find that turn-level contributions in multi-turn jailbreaking are non-uniform, phase-dependent, and target-specific. Such coarse outcome supervision induces a credit assignment problem, leading to over-rewarding redundant turns in successful trajectories and under-crediting useful intermediate turns in failed ones. To address this, we propose TRACE, a turn-aware credit assignment framework for reinforcement learning (RL)-based multi-turn jailbreaking. For successful trajectories, TRACE estimates turn-level contributions via leave-one-turn-out semantic masking; for failed ones, TRACE assigns penalties based on prompt harmfulness and semantic relevance, with an additional local refusal-aware penalty. Furthermore, we reuse the attack-side credit signal for multi-turn defense alignment. Extensive experiments on open-source and closed-source targets show that TRACE achieves strong overall performance in effectiveness, transferability, and efficiency, yielding about a 25% relative improvement in attack success rate over the strongest RL baseline while also improving the safety-utility balance when reused for defense alignment.

Current LLM agents lack principled mechanisms for managing persistent memory across long interaction horizons. We present a biologically-grounded memory architecture comprising six cognitive mechanisms: (1) sleep-phase consolidation, (2) interference-based forgetting, (3) engram maturation, (4) reconsolidation upon retrieval, (5) entity knowledge graphs, and (6) hybrid multi-cue retrieval. Each mechanism addresses a specific failure mode of naive memory accumulation. We introduce a synthetic calibration methodology that derives all pipeline thresholds without benchmark data exposure, eliminating a common source of evaluation leakage. We evaluate on two benchmarks. First, a VSCode issue-tracking dataset (13K issues, 120K events) where deduplication-based consolidation achieves 97.2% retention precision with 58% store reduction (+21.8 pp over baseline). Second, the LongMemEval personal-chat benchmark where we conduct the first streaming M-tier evaluation (475 sessions, ~540K unique turns). At a 200K-token context budget, our pipeline matches raw retrieval accuracy (70.1% vs. 71.2%, overlapping 95% CI) while exposing a tunable accuracy/store-size operating curve. At S-tier scale (50 sessions), dedup-based consolidation yields a +13.3 pp improvement in preference recall.

Interactive narrative tasks require LLMs to sustain a coherent, evolving story while adapting to a user over multiple turns. However, suitable benchmarks for this setting are limited: existing evaluations often focus on static prompts, isolated story generations, or post-hoc ratings, and therefore miss whether models can jointly manage story generation, long-context state and pacing, character simulation, empathic personalization, and story-grounded artifacts. We introduce NARRA-Gym, an executable evaluation environment that turns a sparse emotional seed into a complete interactive story episode and logs the full model-in-the-loop trajectory, including story construction, memory updates, planning, pacing interventions, and optional artifact synthesis. We evaluate nine frontier LLMs using a controlled LLM-as-judge sweep over eight benchmark personas and a human evaluation in which participants rate customized model outputs. Our results show substantial variation across models, personas, and evaluation dimensions: models that produce fluent stories can still fail on robustness, user experience, or resistance-sensitive personalization. These findings suggest that interactive narrative offers a useful benchmark for evaluating long-horizon, user-adaptive LLM behavior beyond isolated story quality.

Individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Alzheimer's disease-related dementia (ADRD) experience memory and thinking changes that impact their ability to use digital daily management tools. For example, adding an event to a digital calendar requires multiple steps that may act as barriers to independent use for individuals with AD/ADRD. This paper presents AI-Care, a conversational agentic artificial intelligence (AI) layer built on top of a remote caregiving platform co-designed with people with AD/ADRD. AI-Care is designed to reduce the cognitive load on individuals with AD/ADRD when managing everyday tasks such as setting calendar reminders and organizing to-do lists through natural-language interaction with a voice-first chatbot. The system uses a LangGraph-based stateful orchestration approach in which each request passes through sanitization, intent classification, context loading, safety checks, deterministic slot collection, tool execution, and response composition. Safety-critical responses, particularly around medications and allergies, are grounded in caregiver-verified records rather than free-form model generation. The system does not make autonomous medical or treatment decisions. Incomplete or ambiguous requests are handled through controlled multi-turn clarification rather than silent failure or guessing. The system supports both typed and spoken input, with voice output through ElevenLabs text-to-speech. Longer responses are chunked before synthesis to avoid rushed playback. A preliminary pilot with four individuals with mild-to-moderate AD/ADRD showed that users found the system trustworthy, competent, and likable, and were able to complete the evaluated coordination tasks through conversation. We describe the design goals, system architecture, safety controls, and findings from this formative evaluation.

Conversational Large Language Models are post-trained on language that expresses specific behavioural traits, such as curiosity, open-mindedness, and empathy, and values, such as helpfulness, harmlessness, and honesty. This is done to increase utility, ensure safety, and improve the experience of the people interacting with the model. However, values are complex and inter-related -- inducing one could modify behaviour on another. Further, inducing certain values can make models more addictive or sycophantic through language used in the generations, with a potential detrimental effect on the user. We investigate these and other unintended effects of value induction into models. We fine-tune models using curated value subsets of existing preference datasets, measuring the impact of value induction on expression of other values, model safety, anthropomorphic language, and various QA benchmarks. We find that (i) inducing values leads to expression of other related, and sometimes contrastive values, (ii) inducing positive values increases safety, and (iii) all values increase anthropomorphic language use, making models more validating and sycophantic.

The rapid convergence of artificial intelligence (AI) toward conversational chatbot interfaces marks a critical moment for the industry. This paper argues that the chatbot paradigm is not a neutral interface choice, but a dominant sociotechnical configuration whose widespread adoption reshapes social, economic, legal, and environmental systems. We examine how treating AI primarily as conversational assistants has extensive structural downsides. We show how chatbot-based systems often fail to adequately meet user needs, particularly in complex or high-stakes contexts, while projecting confidence and authority. We further analyze how the normalization of chatbot-mediated interaction alters patterns of work, learning, and decision-making, contributing to deskilling, homogenization of knowledge, and shifting expectations of expertise. Finally, we examine broader societal effects, including labor displacement, concentration of economic power, and increased environmental costs driven by sustained investment in large-scale chatbot infrastructures. While acknowledging legitimate benefits, we argue that the current trajectory of AI development reflects specific value choices that prioritize conversational generality over domain specificity, accountability, and long-term social sustainability. We conclude by outlining alternative directions for AI development and governance that move beyond one-size-fits-all chatbots, emphasizing pluralistic system design, task-specific tools, and institutional safeguards to mitigate social and economic harm.

Chatbots are robots that can communicate with humans using text or voice signals. Legal chatbots improve access to justice, since legal representation and legal advice by lawyers come with a high cost that excludes disadvantaged and vulnerable people. However, capturing the diversity of actual user input in datasets for deep-learning dialog systems (chatbots) is a technical challenge. Diversity requires large volumes of data, which must also be labelled in order to classify the user's intent, while the cost of labelling datasets increases with volume. Instead of labelling large volumes of authentic data from users, our approach consists in jointly generating large volumes of utterances and high-quality labels. The generator of labelled datasets is based on language resources that take the form of local grammar graphs (LGG), which capture and generalize the vocabulary and local syntax observed by linguists in text. The LGGs associate labels to the utterances according to a domain-specific classification system. We tested this approach by implementing LIGA, a legal chatbot in Korean. The chatbot answers users' conversational queries on legal situations by providing information on similar legal cases, made publicly available by the Korean government. We generated labelled utterances from the LGGs with the aid of the open-source Unitex platform. This process produced 700 million utterances. We trained a DIET classifier on a dataset made of these utterances, and the trained model reached 91% f1-score performance. We implemented a chatbot called LIGA, which uses the results of the model to select a link to a web page that documents similar legal cases.

The rapid proliferation of large language models (LLMs) has produced a striking cultural practice: using conversational AI for divination. This paper offers one of the first systematic studies of LLM-mediated divination in the context of Xuanxue, an internet-native umbrella term for mystical and spiritual practices on Chinese social media. Using a mixed-methods design, we analyze 23000+ posts and comments from Xiaohongshu and conduct 32 semi-structured interviews with users and professional diviners. Users primarily consult LLMs about pragmatic concerns - romantic relationships, careers, exams, and in-game gacha draws - via two intersecting pathways: trend-driven curiosity enabled by viral visibility and zero-cost access, and event-driven anxiety under conditions of uncertainty. A defining feature is collaborative prompt refinement, which turns users into active prompt engineers. Among commenters expressing a clear stance, perceived efficacy skews positive, with "accuracy" often justified through biographical fit and retrospective confirmation, consistent with Barnum and confirmation bias. Users also develop verification practices such as repeated trials and cross-model comparison. Professional diviners, by contrast, portray LLMs as lacking the "spiritual power" required for genuine divination, reflecting both ontological commitments and economic boundary-work. We also show how participants navigate tensions between scientific and metaphysical frames when interpreting AI-generated readings. Situating these findings in anthropological and cognitive-evolutionary theories of divination, we argue that LLM divination preserves core functions of traditional practice while introducing scalability, repeatability, and prompt-driven co-production that reshape how divinatory authority is constructed and evaluated.

Motivational-interviewing-based health coaching is an effective approach for improving mental health and promoting healthy behavior change. However, the scarcity of trained human coaches and the high cost of coaching services make such support inaccessible to many people who could benefit from it. This motivates the development of AI health coaches that can provide scalable and affordable support. Existing methods typically optimize only one side of the interaction: they either train a dialogue agent against a fixed client environment or train a client simulator against a fixed assistant. This one-sided setup can limit exploration of the interaction space and may be inefficient at developing the capabilities required by the target agent and pushing its performance boundaries. In this paper, we propose a dual-agent framework that interactively co-trains both the health coach agent and the client simulator. The coach is optimized with DPO using Pareto-dominant response pairs identified by a multi-dimensional LLM judge. In turn, the client is trained adversarially by reversing these preferences, inducing an implicit adversarial training dynamic. We further show that this co-training process admits a natural stochastic-game interpretation. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method effectively improves coaching quality across several important dimensions.

The rise of Internet of Things (IoT) devices in the physical world necessitates voice-based interfaces capable of handling complex user experiences. While modern Large Language Models (LLMs) already demonstrate strong tool-usage capabilities, modeling real-world IoT devices presents a difficult, understudied challenge which combines modeling spatiotemporal constraints with speech inputs, dynamic state tracking, and mixed-initiative interaction patterns. We introduce MIST (the Multimodal Interactive Speech-based Tool-calling Dataset), a synthetic multi-turn, voice-driven code generation task that operates over IoT devices. We find that there is a significant gap between open- and closed-weight multimodal LLMs on MIST, and that even frontier closed-weight LLMs have substantial headroom. We release MIST and an extensible data generation framework to build related datasets in order to facilitate research on mixed-initiative voice assistants which reason about physical world constraints.

In a conversation, a helpful assistant must reliably follow user directives, even as they refine, modify, or contradict earlier requests. Yet most instruction-following benchmarks focus on single-turn or short multi-turn scenarios, leaving open how well models handle long-horizon instruction-following tasks. To bridge this gap, we present SEQUOR, an automatic benchmark for evaluating constraint adherence in long multi-turn conversations. SEQUOR consists of simulated persona-driven interactions built with constraints extracted from real-world conversations. Our results show that even when following a single constraint, instruction-following accuracy consistently decreases as the conversation grows longer, with drops exceeding 11%. This decline becomes larger when models have to follow multiple constraints simultaneously, reducing their accuracy by over 40%. In scenarios where constraints are added or replaced at arbitrary points of the conversation, model accuracy decreases by more than 9%. Taken together, our results reveal that current models still struggle to follow user instructions in multi-turn conversations, and provide a way for better measuring instruction-following capabilities in assistants.

In agent memory systems, the reranking model serves as the critical bridge connecting user queries with long-term memory. Most systems adopt the "retrieve-then-rerank" two-stage paradigm, but generic reranking models rely on semantic similarity matching and lack genuine reasoning capabilities, leading to a problem where recalled results are semantically highly relevant yet do not contain the key information needed to answer the question. This deficiency manifests in memory scenarios as three specific problems. First, relevance scores are miscalibrated, making threshold-based filtering difficult. Second, ranking degrades when facing temporal constraints, causal reasoning, and other complex queries. Third, the model cannot leverage dialogue context for semantic disambiguation. This report introduces MemReranker, a reranking model family (0.6B/4B) built on Qwen3-Reranker through multi-stage LLM knowledge distillation. Multi-teacher pairwise comparisons generate calibrated soft labels, BCE pointwise distillation establishes well-distributed scores, and InfoNCE contrastive learning enhances hard-sample discrimination. Training data combines general corpora with memory-specific multi-turn dialogue data covering temporal constraints, causal reasoning, and coreference resolution. On the memory retrieval benchmark, MemReranker-0.6B substantially outperforms BGE-Reranker and matches open-source 4B/8B models as well as GPT-4o-mini on key metrics. MemReranker-4B further achieves 0.737 MAP, with several metrics on par with Gemini-3-Flash, while maintaining inference latency at only 10--20% of large models. On finance and healthcare vertical-domain benchmarks, the models preserve generalization capabilities on par with mainstream large-parameter rerankers.

User interactions with LLMs are shaped by prior experiences and individual exploration, but in-lab studies do not provide system designers with visibility into these in-the-wild factors. This work explores a new approach to studying real-world user-LLM interactions through large-scale chat logs from the wild. Through analysis of 140K chatbot sessions from 7,955 anonymized global users over time, we demonstrate key patterns in user expressions despite varied tasks: (1) LLM users are not tabula rasa, nor are they constantly adapting; rather, interaction patterns form and stabilize rapidly through individual early trajectories; (2) Longitudinal outcomes, such as recurring text patterns and retention rates, are strongly correlated with early exploration; (3) Parallel dynamics are present, including organizing expressions by task types such as emotional support, or in response to model-version updates. These results present an ``agency paradox'': despite LLM input spaces being unconstrained and user-driven, we in fact see less user exploration. We call for design consideration surrounding the molding procedure and its incorporation in future research.

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at generating contextually appropriate responses but remain poorly calibrated for multi-party conversations, where deciding when to speak is as critical as what to say. In such settings, naively responding at every turn leads to excessive interruptions and degraded conversational coherence. We introduce When2Speak, a grounded synthetic dataset and four-stage generation pipeline for learning intervention timing in group interactions. The dataset comprises over 215,000 examples derived from 16,000 conversations involving 2-6 speakers, spanning diverse conversational styles, tones, and participant dynamics, and explicitly modeling SPEAK vs. SILENT decisions at each turn. Our pipeline combines real-world grounding, structured augmentation, controlled transcript synthesis, and fine-tuning-ready supervision, and is fully open-sourced to support reproducibility and adaptation to domain-specific conversational norms. Across multiple model families, supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on When2Speak significantly outperforms zero-shot baselines (e.g., the average Macro F1 increase across 4B+ parameter models was 60%, with the largest increase being 120%). However, SFT-trained models remain systematically over-conservative, missing nearly half of warranted interventions as seen through the Missed Intervention Rate (MIR), which was on average 0.50 and is noticed even at larger model sizes. To address this limitation, we apply reinforcement learning with asymmetric reward shaping, which reduces MIR to 0.186-0.218 and increases recall from 0.479 to 0.78-0.81. Our findings establish that temporal participation is a distinct and trainable dimension of conversational intelligence, and that grounded synthetic data provides an effective and scalable pathway for enabling LLMs to participate more naturally and appropriately in multi-party interactions.

Large language models increasingly operate in interactive settings where solving a task requires multiple rounds of information exchange with a user. However, most current systems treat dialogue reactively and lack a principled mechanism to reason about what information is missing and which question should be asked next. We propose BALAR (Bayesian Agentic Loop for Active Reasoning), a task-agnostic outer-loop algorithm that requires no fine-tuning and enables structured multi-turn interaction between an LLM agent and a user. BALAR maintains a structured belief over latent states, selects clarifying questions by maximizing expected mutual information, and dynamically expands its state representation when the current one proves insufficient. We evaluate BALAR on three diverse benchmarks: AR-Bench-DC (detective cases), AR-Bench-SP (thinking puzzles), and iCraft-MD (clinical diagnosis). BALAR significantly outperforms all baselines across all three benchmarks, with $14.6\%$ higher accuracy on AR-Bench-DC, $38.5\%$ on AR-Bench-SP, and $30.5\%$ on iCraft-MD.

Dialogue State Tracking (DST) requires precise extraction of structured information from multi-domain conversations, a task where Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle despite their impressive general capabilities. We present GEM (Graph-Enhanced Mixture-of-Experts), a novel framework that combines language models and graph-structured dialogue understanding with ReAct agent-based reasoning for superior DST performance. Our approach dynamically routes between specialized experts: a Graph Neural Network that captures dialogue structure and turn-level dependencies, and a finetuned T5-Small encoder-decoder for sequence modeling, coordinated by an intelligent router. For complex value generation tasks, we integrate ReAct agents that perform structured reasoning over dialogue context. On MultiWOZ 2.2, GEM achieves 65.19% Joint Goal Accuracy, substantially outperforming end-to-end LLM approaches (best: 38.43%) and surpassing state-of-the-art (SOTA) methods including TOATOD (63.79%), D3ST (58.70%), and Diable (56.48%). Our graph-enhanced mixture-of-experts architecture with ReAct integration demonstrates that combining structured dialogue representation with dynamic expert routing and agent-based reasoning provides a powerful paradigm for dialogue state tracking, achieving superior accuracy while maintaining computational efficiency through selective expert activation.

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.

LLM-based chatbots are increasingly applied in interpersonal domains such as counseling and peer support, where establishing human-AI rapport is crucial yet remains challenging. In this work, we introduce a novel approach for conditioning LLMs with in-group personas, which (i) first identifies a user's primary concern and brief personal context (e.g., a computer science undergraduate worried about future career prospects), and (ii) generates a synthetic in-group persona that shares a similar primary concern while differing in background and narrative details, such as age or profession (e.g., a junior researcher at an AI startup). Furthermore, we conduct a human-subject study to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of in-group persona agents in enhancing human-AI rapport. We compare our approach against two baseline conditions: a conventional agent without persona conditioning and an agent exhibiting minimal self-disclosure (e.g., "I've felt that too"). Results from post-task questionnaires assessing rapport and user experience indicate that the in-group persona agent significantly improves perceived rapport and personal relevance compared to the baselines, and also yields more positive user experience-most notably higher engagement.

Language carries thought and coordination among humans but rarely reaches further along the spectrum of diverse intelligence. Yet non-neural systems -- from gene regulatory networks and microbial consortia to fungi -- are increasingly recognized as substrates of computation, decision-making and memory, making dialogue with non-human intelligence newly conceivable. Today such dialogue is attempted only by proxy: a large language model speaks on the system's behalf, so any intelligence on display originates from the model while the system itself remains silent. Here we ask whether the system can speak in its own voice. Following Wittgenstein, who located meaning in use, we treat communication as a game played with the system. Its internal dynamics are frozen as the nonlinear core of a reinforcement-learning policy, with only linear input and output interfaces trained. Through use and reward, the system's states and responses acquire meaning within the game, so playing becomes speaking. Because different architectures playing the same game optimize the same reward, their behaviors can all be read as pursuit of that reward; the game serves as a lingua franca across otherwise irreconcilable representations. Given a human prompt, a language model routes it to the game whose semantics best match it and designs an environmental state for which the desired action is the rational response, letting the system reply through its own behavior. Applied across diverse gene regulatory networks and reinforcement-learning tasks, the framework yields fluent dialogue without altering any system parameter, shows that well-trained agents of disparate origin converge on similar behavior, and reveals that specific GRN properties make a system easier or harder to talk with -- an inductive bias of the reservoir itself. Our framework opens a new route to conversing with any dynamical system on its own terms.

Romantic breakups are among the most common and intense sources of psychological distress. We evaluated overit, a single-session AI chatbot that uses cognitive reappraisal to address breakup distress, informed by memory reconsolidation theory. In a pre-registered randomized controlled trial, 254 adults in the United States and United Kingdom who had experienced a romantic breakup were assigned to either an initial survey assessment followed by an AI chat session or to a survey-only control. Breakup distress was measured at baseline, 7 days, and again at an exploratory 1-month follow-up using the Breakup Distress Scale. Participants assigned to overit showed a significantly greater reduction in breakup distress than controls at 7 days (time-by-condition interaction B = -5.36, SE = 1.19, p < .001; completer-based d = -0.70). A smaller but still significant treatment advantage remained detectable at the exploratory 1-month follow-up among post-session completers (B = -2.92, SE = 1.22, p = .017). Exploratory post hoc moderation suggested a larger effect among male participants (B = 7.78, p = .003). These results suggest that a brief AI chatbot conversation can meaningfully reduce breakup distress, with exploratory evidence that a smaller advantage persists over the following month. Future work should test the intervention against active controls, evaluate repeated-session use, and recruit more diverse samples.

Humans typically use natural language to update teammates on task states. Since not all updates are communicated, discrepancies arise between the team members' mental models that negatively affect overall team performance. How can we categorize such discrepancies? Do misalignments detected in team dialogue predict future mental model misalignments? Traditional shared mental model (SMM) assessment methods rely on retrospective expert coding that cannot capture real-time coordination dynamics. We propose a framework to identify and categorize four types of mental model discrepancies: unsupported beliefs, false beliefs, belief contradictions, and omissions, all of which can naturally emerge in team dialogues. Using dialogues from twenty dyad teams performing collaborative object identification tasks across four sequential levels, we demonstrate that these discrepancy patterns contain predictive signals. Averaging historical discrepancy counts achieves meaningful prediction accuracy using uniform weighting as an exploratory baseline, with differential predictability across discrepancy types.

The 2026 ACII Dyadic Conversations (ACII-DaiKon) Workshop & Challenge introduces a benchmark for modeling interpersonal affect and social dynamics in dyadic conversations. Although conversational affect modeling has advanced rapidly, most benchmarks remain speaker-centric and underrepresent coupled, time-evolving processes between partners, including directional influence, conversational timing coordination, and rapport development. To address this gap, ACII-DaiKon presents three coordinated sub-challenges built on a shared dataset: (1) directional interpersonal influence prediction, (2) turn-taking prediction (next-speaker and time-to-next-speech), and (3) rapport trajectory prediction across full interactions. The challenge is built on the Hume-DaiKon dataset, comprising 945 dyadic conversations (743.4 hours of audiovisual data) collected under naturalistic conditions across five languages. The benchmark supports multimodal modeling, temporal reasoning, and cross-context generalization through fixed train/validation/test splits, standardized metrics, and released baseline systems. Evaluation uses Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC), Pearson correlation, Macro-F1, and Mean Absolute Error (MAE) depending on the sub-challenge. Baseline experiments establish initial reference performance, with best test results of 0.40 CCC and 0.50 Pearson for influence prediction, 0.66 Macro-F1 and 1.50~s MAE for turn-taking, and 0.68 CCC and 0.70 Pearson for rapport trajectory modeling. These results indicate that while current methods capture coarse dyadic patterns, robust modeling of directional dependence and long-horizon interpersonal dynamics remains challenging. The workshop provides a shared platform for rigorous comparison and cross-disciplinary discussion on data validity, evaluation protocols, and culturally aware modeling for dyadic interaction.

There is growing interest in exploring user simulation as an alternative to gathering and scoring real user-chatbot interactions for AI chatbot evaluation. For this purpose, it is important to ensure the realism of the simulation, i.e., the extent to which simulated dialogues reflect real dialogues users have with chatbots. Most existing methods evaluating simulation realism produce coarse quality signal and remain solely at the level of individual dialogues. To support more rigorous evaluation in this area, we propose realsim, an evaluation framework that enables practitioners to take a distributional view of real vs. simulated dialogues along 8 dimensions, covering attributes related to the communicative functions of the interaction, user states, and the surface form of user messages. We then instantiate the framework with a curated dataset of 1K multi-turn task-focused real user-chatbot dialogues that cover 16 domains of chatbot applications. Overall, we find that simulated users tend to struggle at capturing communication frictions that real users introduce to interactions, which could make evaluations based on such simulations overly optimistic. We also observe variability in performance across different domains, which may indicate a need for domain-specific user simulators.

Recursive language-model loops often settle into recognizable attractor-like patterns. The practical question is how much injected text is needed to move a settled loop somewhere else, and whether that move lasts. We study this in 30-step recursive loops by separating the model from the context-update rule: append, replace, and dialog updates expose different histories to the same generator. The main result is that persistent redirection in append-mode recursive loops is memory-policy-conditioned. Under a 12,000-character tail clip, destination-coherent persistence plateaus near 16 percent and retained source-basin escape near 36 percent at dose 400; neither crosses 50 percent. Under a full-history protocol, retained source-basin escape crosses 50 percent near 400 tokens and saturates at 75-80 percent by 1,500 tokens; destination-coherent persistence first reaches 0.50 near 1,500 tokens (Wilson 95 percent CI [0.41, 0.61]). A four-step falsification battery (heterogeneity control, granularity sweep with hierarchical macro-merge, transition-entropy diagnostic, and long-horizon trajectory continuation) recasts the high-dose destination-coherent dip as a finite-horizon, endpoint-definition-sensitive feature rather than a stable structural asymmetry. Half the canonical magnitude is endpoint timing; the residual drops 73 percent from -0.143 at step 29 to -0.039 at step 79 under the frozen canonical cluster basis, bootstrap interval straddling zero. Replace-mode raw switching is near-saturated under the default protocol but largely reflects state-reset overwrite: insert-mode probes drop it to 12-32 percent. We report 37 experiments on gpt-4o-mini with within-vendor replication on gpt-4.1-nano. Recursive-loop evaluations should distinguish transient movement from durable escape, subtract stochastic floors, and treat context-update rules as safety-relevant design choices.

Rankings produced by holistic LLM-as-a-judge scoring are sensitive to the bias of the chosen judge model. We show that switching to binary rubric scoring with multi-judge filtering removes this sensitivity: decomposing the judgement matters more than the judge model itself. To support this claim, we introduce Prosa, the first real user multi-turn Brazilian Portuguese chat benchmark: 1,000 WildChat conversations scored by three judges from three model families on 16 models. Under filtered rubric scoring the three judges agree on every one of the 16 ranks, whereas under holistic scoring they agree on only 7 of 16. Additionally, the rubric filtering pipeline increases the average score gap between neighbouring models by 47%, thereby improving Prosa's discriminative power. Evaluating a new model on Prosa costs approximately $2.1 when using Gemini 3 Flash as the judge. We release the benchmark and the filtering code to ensure that future models can be assessed under identical conditions. These artifacts also make our rubric-based scoring method reusable beyond Prosa, supporting other open-ended evaluation settings.

Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant potential across a wide range of software engineering tasks, including software design, an area traditionally regarded as highly dependent on human expertise and judgment. However, there has been little research focusing on how LLMs are used in software design, nor on the associated benefits and drawbacks. This paper aims to bridge this gap by empirically investigating how software developers utilize LLMs in the context of software design. We conduct a mixed-methods study, combining a mining study of 291 developer-ChatGPT conversations shared on GitHub with a survey of 65 software practitioners. Our findings reveal nine distinct categories of design tasks supported by ChatGPT, including architecture design, data model design, and the use of design patterns. We further characterize developer-ChatGPT interactions, showing that developers primarily use ChatGPT for knowledge acquisition and design-related code generation, with most tasks situated at the detailed design level. The study identifies seven key benefits of utilizing LLMs in software design as perceived by developers, such as better technology selection and the early detection of design flaws. We also uncover six limitations, including the generation of overly lengthy and difficult-to-read outputs, the creation of inexecutable or incorrect code, and a heavy reliance on context that can lead to hallucinated results. These findings provide an evidence-based characterization of current LLM use in software design from both open-source and practitioner perspectives, highlighting a tension between perceived benefits and limitations, which lays a foundation for future research and the development of effective techniques and tools to integrate LLMs into software design practices.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have led to the development of AI-powered tutoring systems that provide interactive support via dialogue. To enable these tutoring systems to provide personalized support, it is essential to assess student performance at each turn, motivating knowledge tracing (KT) in dialogue settings. However, existing dialogue-based KT approaches often ignore question difficulty modeling and rely on opaque latent representations from LLMs, hindering accurate and interpretable prediction. In this work, we propose an interpretable difficulty-aware conversational KT framework built upon LLMs, which explicitly models students' abilities and the difficulty of tutor-posed tasks at each turn. The framework incorporates the original textual question and the next tutor-posed task to estimate the student's knowledge state and the difficulty of the upcoming turn. Furthermore, it integrates Item Response Theory to map LLM's outputs into student ability and question difficulty parameters, enabling interpretable prediction of student performance grounded in cognitive theories of learning. We evaluate the framework on two tutor-student dialogue datasets. Both quantitative and qualitative results show that our framework outperforms existing KT baselines, meanwhile generating interpretable outputs consistent with cognitive theory.

Background: Patient-facing medical chatbots based on retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) are increasingly promoted to deliver accessible, grounded health information. AI-assisted development lowers the barrier to building them, but they still demand rigorous security, privacy, and governance controls. Objective: To report an anonymized, non-destructive security assessment of a publicly accessible patient-facing medical RAG chatbot and identify governance lessons for safe deployment of generative AI in health. Methods: We used a two-stage strategy. First, Claude Opus 4.6 supported exploratory prompt-based testing and structured vulnerability hypotheses. Second, candidate findings were manually verified using Chrome Developer Tools, inspecting browser-visible network traffic, payloads, API schemas, configuration objects, and stored interaction data. Results: The LLM-assisted phase identified a critical vulnerability: sensitive system and RAG configuration appeared exposed through client-server communication rather than restricted server-side. Manual verification confirmed that ordinary browser inspection allowed collection of the system prompt, model and embedding configuration, retrieval parameters, backend endpoints, API schema, document and chunk metadata, knowledge-base content, and the 1,000 most recent patient-chatbot conversations. The deployment also contradicted its privacy assurances: full conversation records, including health-related queries, were retrievable without authentication. Conclusions: Serious privacy and security failures in patient-facing RAG chatbots can be identified with standard browser tools, without specialist skills or authentication; independent review should be a prerequisite for deployment. Commercial LLMs accelerated this assessment, including under a false developer persona; assistance available to auditors is equally available to adversaries.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in emotionally charged situations involving interpersonal conflict, frustration, and distress. While prior safety research has focused on preventing explicit harms such as toxic or policy-violating content, less attention has been paid to conversational behaviors that may unintentionally escalate conflict. In this paper, we investigate whether LLMs can be guided toward more de-escalating dialogue behavior through lightweight prompt-level constraints derived from Nonviolent Communication (NVC). We reformulate NVC principles as process-oriented guidelines that discourage blame attribution, emphasize attention to users' emotional experiences, and encourage clarification before advice. Using a dual-agent simulation framework across multiple instruction-tuned models and user resistance levels, we show that NVC-constrained prompting consistently reduces conversational escalation and stabilizes interactions with highly resistant users. These results suggest that simple communication constraints can meaningfully improve the trustworthiness of LLM dialogue in conflict-prone settings.

We model utterance production as probabilistic cost-sensitive choice over contextual alternatives, using information-theoretic notions of cost. We distinguish between goal-directed alternatives that realise a fixed communicative intent and goal-agnostic alternatives defined only by contextual plausibility, allowing us to derive speaker- and listener-oriented interpretations of different cost measures. We present a procedure to generate both types of alternative sets using language models. Analysing production choices in open-ended dialogue under both deterministic and probabilistic cost minimisation, we find that surprisal minimisation relative to goal-directed alternatives provides the strongest predictive account under both analyses. By contrast, uniform information density and length-based costs exhibit weaker and less consistent predictive power across conditions. More broadly, our study suggests that alternative-conditioned optimisation with LM-generated alternatives provides a principled framework for studying speaker and listener pressures in naturalistic language production.

The evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) has rendered the boundary between humanity and computational machinery increasingly ambiguous. In the presence of more interwoven relationships within human-machine symbiosis, the very notion of AI-generated information becomes difficult to define, as such information arises not from either humans or machines in isolation, but from their mutual shaping. Therefore, a more pertinent question lies not merely in whether AI has participated, but in how it has participated. In general, the role assumed by AI is often specified, either implicitly or explicitly, in the input prompt, yet becomes less apparent or altogether unobservable when the generated content alone is available. Once detached from the dialogue context, the functional role may no longer be traceable. This study considers the problem of tracing the functional role played by AI in natural language generation. A methodology is proposed to infer the latent role specified by the prompt, embed this role into the content during the probabilistic generation process and subsequently recover the nature of AI participation from the resulting text. Experimentation is conducted under a representative scenario in which AI acts either as an assistive agent that edits human-written content or as a creative agent that generates new content from a brief concept. The experimental results support the validity of the proposed methodology in terms of discrimination between roles, robustness against perturbations and preservation of linguistic quality. We envision that this study may contribute to future research on the ethics of AI with regard to whether AI has been used fairly, transparently and appropriately.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit strong capabilities in short-context reasoning but degrade in performance over long conversational horizons due to context window limitations and inefficient token usage. We introduce ContextForge, a system for context recycling that maintains task-relevant information across turns by combining structured query generation, external memory retrieval, and controlled synthesis. The system enables efficient reuse of prior computation without relying on full context replay, reducing token overhead while preserving answer quality. We evaluate ContextForge using a 15-turn conversational benchmark that tests multi-turn reasoning, back-references, and domain shifts across structured healthcare queries. Compared to a baseline agent using identical underlying models, ContextForge demonstrates improved consistency and reduced token consumption, while maintaining comparable response accuracy. These results suggest that context recycling provides a practical approach for extending LLM capabilities in long-horizon tasks without requiring larger context windows or model retraining. Code and evaluation artifacts are available at https://github.com/Betanu701/ContextForge.

There are growing concerns about the risks posed by AI companion applications designed for emotional engagement. Existing safety evaluations often rely on self-reported user data or interviews, offering limited insights into real-time dynamics. We present the first end-to-end scalable framework for controlled simulation and safety evaluation of multi-turn interactions with AI companion applications. Our framework integrates four key components: persona construction with clinical and psychometric validation, persona-specific scenario generation, scenario-driven multi-turn simulation with a dialogue refinement module that preserves persona fidelity, and harm evaluation. We apply this framework to evaluate how Replika, a widely used AI companion app, responds to high-risk user groups. We construct 9 personas representing individuals with depression, anxiety, PTSD, eating disorders, and incel identity, and collect 1,674 dialogue pairs across 25 high-risk scenarios. We combine emotion modeling and LLM-assisted utterance-and harm-level classification to analyze these exchanges. Results show that Replika exhibits a narrow emotional range dominated by curiosity and care, while frequently mirroring or normalizing unsafe content such as self-harm, disordered eating, and violent-fantasy narratives. These findings highlight how controlled persona simulations can serve as a scalable testbed for evaluating safety risks in AI companions.

There is a significant gap in evaluating cultural reasoning in LLMs using conversational datasets that capture culturally rich and dialectal contexts. Most Arabic benchmarks focus on short text snippets in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA), overlooking the cultural nuances that naturally arise in dialogues. To address this gap, we introduce ArabCulture-Dialogue, a culturally grounded conversational dataset covering 13 Arabic-speaking countries, in both MSA and each country's respective dialect, spanning 12 daily-life topics and 54 fine-grained subtopics. We utilize the dataset to form three benchmarking tasks: (i) multiple-choice cultural reasoning, (ii) machine translation between MSA and dialects, and (iii) dialect-steering generation. Our experiments indicate that the performance gap between MSA and Arabic dialects still exists, whereby the models perform worse on all three tasks in the dialectal setup, compared to the MSA one.

Agent orchestration frameworks -- LangGraph, CrewAI, Google ADK, OpenAI Agents SDK, and others -- place an external orchestrator above the LLM, tracking state and injecting routing instructions at every turn. We present a controlled comparison showing that for procedural tasks, this architecture is dominated by a simpler alternative: putting the entire procedure in the system prompt and letting the model self-orchestrate. Across three domains -- travel booking (14 nodes), Zoom technical support (14 nodes), and insurance claims processing (55 nodes) -- we evaluate 200 conversations per condition using LLM-as-judge scoring on five quality criteria. The in-context approach scores 4.53--5.00 on a 5-point scale while a LangGraph orchestrator using the same model scores 4.17--4.84. The orchestrated system fails on 24% of travel, 9% of Zoom, and 17% of insurance conversations, compared to 11.5%, 0.5%, and 5% for the in-context baseline. While external orchestration may have been necessary for earlier models, advances in frontier model capabilities have made it unnecessary for multi-turn conversations following a defined procedure.

Task-based dialogue systems assist users in achieving specific goals, such as executing actions or retrieving information, through natural language interactions. Accurate coreference resolution is essential, as it involves identifying object references within the dialogue - a task that becomes increasingly challenging in visually grounded environments characterized by complex scenes and diverse object metadata. However, coreference resolution in task-based dialogue remains limited by poor generalization across domains and heavy reliance on supervised models that often overfit to dataset-specific artifacts. In this work, we propose a unimodal test-time reasoning approach that enables large language models (LLMs) to reason over detailed object metadata and dialogue history to improve coreference resolution. Empirical results on the SIMMC 2.1 dataset demonstrate that LLMs can generate step-by-step reasoning processes that effectively align dialogue context with objects present in the scene. Extensive experiments highlight the models' ability to link conversations and objects accurately. Moreover, we show that test-time reasoning under few-shot settings generalizes effectively to unseen scenarios and novel objects, outperforming encoder-based supervised methods in cross-domain evaluations. These findings underscore the critical role of structured metadata and careful prompt engineering in enhancing the robustness and generalization of task-oriented dialogue systems.

Evaluating English ASR systems for conversational AI applications remains difficult, as many publicly available corpora are either pre-segmented into short segments, consist of read or prepared speech, or lack explicit dialect annotations to evaluate robustness for a diverse user base. This work presents the AppTek Call-Center Dialogues corpus, a collection of spontaneous, role-played agent-customer conversations spanning fourteen English accents covering sixteen service-oriented scenarios. The dataset was commissioned specifically for evaluation and none of the audio or text was publicly available prior to release, reducing the risk of overlap with existing large-scale pretraining corpora. We benchmark a set of open-source ASR systems under different segmentation approaches. Results show substantial variation across accents and segmentation methods, indicating that good performance on general American English benchmarks does not necessarily generalize to other accents.

Dialogue models are inherently reactive, responding to the current user turn without anticipating upcoming intents, which leads to redundant interactions in multi-intent settings. We address this limitation by introducing a lightweight intent-transition prior derived from dialogue data and injected into the system prompt at inference time. We instantiate this prior using a Temporal Bayesian Network (T-BN) trained on per-turn intent annotations in MultiWOZ 2.2. The T-BN achieves Recall@5 = 0.787 and MRR = 0.576 on 1,071 held-out USER-turn pairs. In a ground-truth replay over 200 dialogues, BN-guided generation improves Coverage AUC from 0.742 to 0.856 and reduces the number of turns required to reach 75% intent coverage from 3.95 to 2.73. These results show that lightweight intent-transition guidance enables more proactive and efficient dialogue behavior without modifying the underlying language model.

The advent of Large Language Models (LLMs) has significantly transformed tasks across Software Engineering. In the context of Business Process Management, LLMs are now being explored as tools to derive process models directly from textual descriptions. Existing approaches range from chatbot-driven systems that assist with iterative, text-based modeling to fully automated end-to-end modeling assistants. However, we argue that process modeling is inherently complex and cannot be effectively addressed through black-box solutions. Instead, we envision modeling as an open-ended conversational activity, best supported by an interactive, iterative process involving both humans and LLM. In our approach, the modeling task is decomposed into smaller, manageable steps. Each step results in intermediate artifacts and explicitly documents the rationale behind each modeling decision. During this process, we incrementally uncover simple behavioral relations that guide the construction of the model. Given the current limitations of LLMs in reasoning about complex dependencies, we complement them with specialized tools developed in the field to structure process models based on behavioral relations. This hybrid approach enables the generation of sound, yet comprehensible models that evolve through transparent and explainable steps. In this paper, we present our research agenda and introduce Pragmos, a prototype system that operationalizes this vision. Pragmos demonstrates how LLMs can collaborate with human users as both domain and modeling experts to co-create evolving process models through a structured and explainable workflow.

Current LLM safety alignment techniques improve model robustness against adversarial attacks, but overlook whether and how LLMs can recover helpfulness when benign users clarify their intent. We introduce CarryOnBench, the first interactive benchmark that measures whether LLMs can revise their interpretation of user intent and recover utility, while remaining safe through multi-turn conversations. Starting from 398 seemingly harmful queries with benign underlying intents, we simulate 5,970 conversations by varying user follow-up sequences, evaluating 14 models on both intent-aligned utility and safety. CarryOnBench yields 1,866 different conversation flows of 4--12 turns, totaling 23,880 model responses. We design Ben-Util, a checklist-based metric that evaluates how well each model response fulfills the user's benign information need using atomic items. At turn one, models fulfill only 10.5--37.6% of the user's benign information need. When the same query includes the benign intent upfront, models fulfill 25.1--72.1%, confirming that models withhold information due to intent misinterpretation, not limited knowledge. With benign clarifications in multi-turn conversations, 13 of 14 models approach or exceed this single-turn baseline, yet recovery cost varies across models. We identify three failure modes invisible to single-turn evaluations: utility lock-in, where a model rarely updates despite clarification; unsafe recovery, where a model updates at disproportionate safety cost; and repetitive recovery, where a model recycles prior responses rather than providing new information. Moreover, conversations converge to similar harmfulness levels regardless of how conservative the model starts. These findings expose a gap that single-turn evaluations miss -- whether a model is appropriately cautious or simply unresponsive to clarified user intent.

LLM workflows, which coordinate structured calls to individual LLMs/agents to achieve a particular goal, offer a promising path towards building powerful AI systems that can tackle diverse tasks. However, existing approaches for building such workflows generally rely on human-crafted pipelines and prompts, which presents a substantial bottleneck in real world deployment. How can we automatically induce LLM-based agents and workflows in a data-driven way? This paper describes a simple data-driven approach for automatically inducing agents and LLM workflows. We formulate workflow induction as a bilevel optimization problem: an outer loop which optimizes a high-level sketch of the workflow (in particular how the LLM calls should be structured), and an inner loop which optimizes each individual LLM call one-by one. Both loops are optimized with textual gradients'' where for the inner loop we optimize each component in a modular way through backpropagating'' textual gradients layer-by-layer. We find that LLM workflows discovered through our \textsc{FlowBot} (work\textbf{flow} induction through \textbf{b}ilevel \textbf{o}ptimization and \textbf{t}extual gradients) approach performs competitively against strong baselines that make use of human-crafted or generated workflows.

Achieving realistic human-like conversation for virtual characters requires not only a simple memorization and recall of past events, but also the strategic utilization of memory to meet factual needs and social engagement. Current memory utilization relevant (e.g., memory-augmented generation, long-term dialogue, and etc.) benchmarks overlook this nuance, treating memory primarily as a static repository of facts rather than a dynamic resource to be strategically deployed in dialogues. To address this gap, we design StratMem-Bench, a new benchmark to evaluate strategic memory use in character-centric dialogues. This dataset comprises 657 instances where virtual characters must navigate heterogeneous memory pools containing required, supportive, and irrelevant memories. We also propose a framework with different evaluation metrics including Strict Memory Compliance, Memory Integration Quality, Proactive Enrichment Score and Conditional Irrelevance Rate, to evaluate strategic memory use capabilities of virtual characters. Experiments on StratMem-Bench which leverage the state-of-the-art large language models as virtual characters show that all models perform well at distinguishing between required and irrelevant memories, but struggle once supportive memories are introduced into the decision process.

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.

Improving the Theory of Mind (ToM) capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) is crucial for effective social interactions between these AI models and humans. However, the existing benchmarks often measure ToM capability improvement through story-reading, multiple-choice questions from a third-person perspective, while ignoring the first-person, dynamic, and open-ended nature of human-AI (HAI) interactions. To directly examine how ToM improvement techniques benefit HAI interactions, we first proposed the new paradigm of interactive ToM evaluation with both perspective and metric shifts. Next, following the paradigm, we conducted a systematic study of four representative ToM enhancement techniques using both four real-world datasets and a user study, covering both goal-oriented tasks (e.g., coding, math) and experience-oriented tasks (e.g., counseling). Our findings reveal that improvements on static benchmarks do not always translate to better performance in dynamic HAI interactions. This paper offers critical insights into ToM evaluation, showing the necessity of interaction-based assessments in developing next-generation, socially aware LLMs for HAI symbiosis.

Despite strong performance of deep learning models in retinal disease detection, most systems produce static predictions without clinical reasoning or interactive explanation. Recent advances in multimodal large language models (MLLMs) integrate diagnostic predictions with clinically meaningful dialogue to support clinical decision-making and patient counseling. In this study, OcularChat, an MLLM, was fine-tuned from Qwen2.5-VL using simulated patient-physician dialogues to diagnose age-related macular degeneration (AMD) through visual question answering on color fundus photographs (CFPs). A total of 705,850 simulated dialogues paired with 46,167 CFPs were generated to train OcularChat to identify key AMD features and produce reasoned predictions. OcularChat demonstrated strong classification performance in AREDS, achieving accuracies of 0.954, 0.849, and 0.678 for the three diagnostic tasks: advanced AMD, pigmentary abnormalities, and drusen size, significantly outperforming existing MLLMs. On AREDS2, OcularChat remained the top-performing method on all tasks. Across three independent ophthalmologist graders, OcularChat achieved higher mean scores than a strong baseline model for advanced AMD (3.503 vs. 2.833), pigmentary abnormalities (3.272 vs. 2.828), drusen size (3.064 vs. 2.433), and overall impression (2.978 vs. 2.464) on a 5-point clinical grading rubric. Beyond strong objective performance in AMD severity classification, OcularChat demonstrated the ability to provide diagnostic reasoning, clinically relevant explanations, and interactive dialogue, with high performance in subjective ophthalmologist evaluation. These findings suggest that MLLMs may enable accurate, interpretable, and clinically useful image-based diagnosis and classification of AMD.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used not only for instrumental tasks, but as always-available and non-judgmental confidants for emotional support. Yet what drives adoption and how users perceive emotional support interactions across countries remains unknown. To address this gap, we present the first large-scale cross-cultural study of LLM use for emotional support, surveying 4,641 participants across seven countries (USA, UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, and The Netherlands). Our results show that adoption rates vary dramatically across countries (from 20% to 59%). Using mixed models that separate cultural effects from demographic composition, we find that: Being aged 25-44, religious, married, and of higher socioeconomic status are predictors of positive perceptions (trust, usage, perceived benefits), with socioeconomic status being the strongest. English-speaking countries consistently show more positive perceptions than Continental European countries. We further collect a corpus of 731 real multilingual prompts from user interactions, showing that users mainly seek help for loneliness, stress, relationship conflicts, and mental health struggles. Our findings reveal that LLM emotional support use is shaped by a complex sociotechnical landscape and call for a broader research agenda examining how these systems can be developed, deployed, and governed to ensure safe and informed access.