Dialogue

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Research shows that dialogue, the interactive process through which participants articulate their thinking, plays a central role in constructing shared understanding, coordinating action, and shaping learning outcomes in teams. Analysing dialogue content has been central to advancing team learning theory and informing the design of computer-supported collaborative learning environments, yet this progress has depended on labour-intensive qualitative coding. LLMs offer new possibilities for automating and enhancing the dialogue layer within emerging multimodal learning analytics approaches, with recent studies showing that they can approximate human coding through few-shot prompting. However, prior work has focused on replicating human coding accuracy for research purposes, rather than addressing a more educationally consequential question: how can we design prompts that allow an LLM to label team dialogue accurately and fast enough to be useful in real settings, such as in-person healthcare simulations, where results must be returned quickly and computational cost and sustainability also matter? This paper investigates how prompt design and batching strategies can be optimised to balance coding accuracy, processing time, and environmental impact in team-based healthcare simulation debriefing. Using a dataset of 11,647 utterances coded across 6 dialogue constructs, we compared 4 prompt designs across varying batch sizes, evaluating coding performance, processing time, and energy consumption, as well as the trade-offs between these metrics. Results indicate that increasing batch size improves speed and reduces energy use, but negatively impacts coding performance. Beyond demonstrating the feasibility of LLM-based qualitative analysis, this study offers practical guidance for scaling dialogue analytics in contexts where timeliness, privacy, and sustainability are critical.

Situated dialogue requires speakers to maintain a reliable representation of shared context rather than reasoning only over isolated utterances. Current conversational agents often struggle with this requirement, especially when the common ground must be preserved beyond the immediate context window. In such settings, fine-grained distinctions are frequently compressed into purely textual representations, leading to a critical failure mode we call \emph{representational blur}, in which similar but distinct entities collapse into interchangeable descriptions. This semantic flattening creates an illusion of grounding, where agents appear locally coherent but fail to track shared context persistently over time. Inspired by the role of mental imagery in human reasoning, and based on the increased availability of multimodal models, we explore whether conversational agents can be given an analogous ability to construct some depictive intermediate representations during dialogue to address these limitations. Thus, we introduce an active visual scaffolding framework that incrementally converts dialogue state into a persistent visual history that can later be retrieved for grounded response generation. Evaluation on the IndiRef benchmark shows that incremental externalization itself improves over full-dialog reasoning, while visual scaffolding provides additional gains by reducing representational blur and enforcing concrete scene commitments. At the same time, textual representations remain advantageous for non-depictable information, and a hybrid multimodal setting yields the best overall performance. Together, these findings suggest that conversational agents benefit from an explicitly multimodal representation of common ground that integrates depictive and propositional information.

This paper studies how empirical dialogue-flow statistics can be incorporated into Next Dialogue Act Prediction (NDAP). A KL regularization term is proposed that aligns predicted act distributions with corpus-derived transition patterns. Evaluated on a 60-class German counselling taxonomy using 5-fold cross-validation, this improves macro-F1 by 9--42% relative depending on encoder and substantially improves dialogue-flow alignment. Cross-dataset validation on HOPE suggests that improvements transfer across languages and counselling domains. In systematic ablations across pretrained encoders and architectures, the findings indicate that transition regularization provides consistent gains and disproportionately benefits weaker baseline models. The results suggest that lightweight discourse-flow priors complement pretrained encoders, especially in fine-grained, data-sparse dialogue tasks.

Large language models (LLMs) can generate fluent dialogue, but prior works lack situational grounding, dynamic strategy control, and evaluation aligned with clinical standards in motivational interviewing (MI). We introduce StoryMI, a multi-LLM agent framework for controllable MI dialogue generation, where questionnaire-based client profiles are expanded into situational stories that provide narrative context for the dialogue. Therapist and client agents generate MI-coded utterances guided by MI codes selected by the interaction agent, while an interaction agent dynamically coordinates exchanges to control MI strategies during a multi-turn conversation. We propose a two-level evaluation protocol: lexical metrics and MI-specific measures of macro-level counseling strategies, alongside LLM-as-judge and human expert assessments. We construct a dataset of 6K simulated MI dialogues grounded in 1K questionnaire-story pairs, covering 12 MI codes and 13 symptom domains, and benchmark six open- and closed-source LLMs. Our results show that situational grounding and macro-level control can improve MI adherence and clinical plausibility, demonstrating the effectiveness of a structured multi-agent workflow for psychotherapy dialogue generation. We provide code and data for reproducibility.

Backchannels (e.g., yeah', mhm', and `right') are short, non-interruptive feedback signals whose lexical form and prosody jointly convey pragmatic meaning. While prior computational research has largely focused on predicting backchannel timing, the relationship between lexico-prosodic form and meaning remains underexplored. We propose a two-stage framework: first, fine-tuning large language models on dialogue transcripts to derive rich contextual representations; and second, learning a joint embedding space for dialogue contexts and backchannel realizations. We evaluate alignment with human perception via triadic similarity judgments (prosodic and cross-lexical) and a context-backchannel suitability task. Our results demonstrate that the learned projections substantially improve context-backchannel retrieval compared to previous methods. In addition, they reveal that backchannel form is highly sensitive to extended conversational context and that the learned embeddings align more closely with human judgments than raw WavLM features.

Measuring the quality of public deliberation requires evaluating not only civility or argument structure, but also the informational progress of a conversation. We introduce a framework for Conversational Information Gain (CIG) that evaluates each utterance in terms of how it advances collective understanding of the target topic. To operationalize CIG, we model an evolving semantic memory of the discussion: the system extracts atomic claims from utterances and incrementally consolidates them into a structured memory state. Using this memory, we score each utterance along three interpretable dimensions: Novelty, Relevance, and Implication Scope. We annotate 80 segments from two moderated deliberative settings (TV debates and community discussions) with these dimensions and show that memory-derived dynamics (e.g., the number of claim updates) correlate more strongly with human-perceived CIG than traditional heuristics such as utterance length or TF--IDF. We develop effective LLM-based CIG predictors paving the way for information-focused conversation quality analysis in dialogues and deliberative success.

Robust voice agents require exposure to the full diversity of how people interact through speech. However, obtaining enough spoken interactions is prohibitively expensive. Building spoken user simulators that address this requires large-scale spoken task-oriented dialogue (TOD) data encompassing spoken user behaviors, yet existing datasets are limited in scale and domain coverage, with no systematic pipeline for augmenting them. To address this, we introduce SpokenTOD, a spoken TOD dataset of 52,390 dialogues and 1,034 hours of speech augmented with four spoken user behaviors---cross-turn slots, barge-in, disfluency, and emotional prosody---across diverse speakers and domains. Building on SpokenTOD, we present SpokenUS, a spoken user simulator grounded in TOD that decides when to speak through a dedicated turn-taking head. SpokenUS achieves comparable goal coverage to much larger models while substantially outperforming all baselines in human MOS, disclosing slot values gradually across the dialogue as humans do rather than front-loading them. Further analysis confirms that SpokenUS's spoken behaviors pose meaningful challenges to voice agents, making it a practical tool for evaluating more robust spoken dialogue systems. Our code is available at https://github.com/holi-lab/SpokenUS.

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

Evaluating conversational AI systems that use external tools is challenging, as errors can arise from complex interactions among user, agent, and tools. While existing evaluation methods assess either user satisfaction or agents' tool-calling capabilities, they fail to capture critical errors in multi-turn tool-augmented dialogues-such as when agents misinterpret tool results yet appear satisfactory to users. We introduce TRACE, a benchmark of systematically synthesized tool-augmented conversations covering diverse error cases. Evaluation with state-of-the-art conversation evaluation frameworks reveals that all approaches remain far from ideal performance, demonstrating the fundamental difficulty of this benchmark.

Embodied agents are intelligent systems designed to perceive, reason, and act within the physical world. While the robotics community has long strived to build such versatile agents, a fundamental limitation persists: most current VLA-based models operate under a rigid ``Listen-and-Act'' paradigm. These systems assume instructions are unambiguous and execute them in a passive fashion, preventing them from resolving uncertainty through dialogue. To address this, we propose Ask-to-Clarify, a unified end-to-end framework that seamlessly integrates multi-turn disambiguation dialogue with low-level visuomotor control, eliminating the reliance on high-level action primitives or external planners. Specifically, Ask-to-Clarify synergizes a VLM-based Cognitive Planner with a Diffusion-based Motor Executor. To bridge the disparity between high-level disambiguation and low-level execution, we introduce a Semantic-Visual Alignment Adapter, which functions as a cross-modal interface to synthesize semantic intent with visual perceptual streams. Furthermore, we observe severe catastrophic forgetting: visuomotor fine-tuning completely erases dialogue capabilities. To overcome this, we propose a two-stage knowledge-insulation training strategy, effectively decoupling dialogue logic from physical manipulation. Extensive evaluations across 11 real-world tasks demonstrate that \framework{} significantly outperforms existing methods, offering a promising path toward building truly collaborative embodied agents.

What if large language models could not only infer human mindsets but also expose every blind spot in team dialogue such as discrepancies in the team members' joint understanding? We present a novel, two-step framework that leverages large language models (LLMs) both as human-style annotators of team dialogues to track the team's shared mental models (SMMs) and as automated discrepancy detectors among individuals' mental states. In the first step, an LLM generates annotations by identifying SMM elements within task-oriented dialogues from the Cooperative Remote Search Task (CReST) corpus. Then, a secondary LLM compares these LLM-derived annotations and human annotations against gold-standard labels to detect and characterize divergences. We define an SMM coherence evaluation framework for this use case and apply it to six CReST dialogues, ultimately producing: (1) a dataset of human and LLM annotations; (2) a reproducible evaluation framework for SMM coherence; and (3) an empirical assessment of LLM-based discrepancy detection. Our results reveal that, although LLMs exhibit apparent coherence on straightforward natural-language annotation tasks, they systematically err in scenarios requiring spatial reasoning or disambiguation of prosodic cues.

Conversational AI agents are increasingly explored as creative partners, yet how conversation design shapes child-AI dialogue in co-creative settings remains underexplored. We present Tinker Tales, a tangible dialogue system for child-AI collaborative storytelling, in which educational frameworks (narrative development and social-emotional learning) are instantiated as conversation design, shaping how the agent engages children across four narrative stages. The system combines a physical storytelling board, NFC-embedded toys, and a mobile app mediating multimodal interaction through tangible manipulation and voice-based dialogue. We conducted a home-based user study with 10 children (ages 6-8) across two conversation design conditions varying in how the agent structured elaboration, with and without educational scaffolding. Our findings show that prompt framing shapes the form and consistency of children's narrative contributions, structuring how they participate in co-creative dialogue with AI.

We present the PACE, a framework for retrieval-augmented dialogue serving that formalizes Perceived Time-to-First-Response (PTFR) as a QoE objective and minimizes it under quality/cost constraints. Unlike prior work on cascaded routing, semantic caching, or adaptive retrieval, PACE jointly controls which answer source composes the response and what fills the waiting window. Deployed on a humanoid-robot sales service, it combines three mechanisms: a load-adaptive cascading router, a joint path-filler controller, and volatility-aware cache admission. On 75k CarQA requests, the cascade halves pure-LLM PTFR at P95 (0.29 vs 0.53s at c16). The adaptive controller reaches 0.41s P95, outperforming RAG by 2.4 times at high load with equal quality. The filler controller cuts calls by 94% with zero conflict. Volatility-aware admission reduces stale answers from 86% to 0%. A gating rule ensures the controller never worse than the baseline, with exposure bounded by one hold period. This is the first quantification of filler-answer conflict risk in deployed services.