arXiv:2606. 26106v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in emotionally charged situations involving interpersonal conflict, frustration, and distress.
arXiv:2606. 02423v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can serve as helpful assistants, yet they can equally function as harm amplifiers that enable malicious users to achieve harmful outcomes beyond their capabilities through extended interactions.
arXiv:2606. 08172v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) increasingly mediate high-stakes interactions in finance, medicine, and mental-health support, yet users have limited control over how these systems communicate.
arXiv:2606. 18258v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) exhibit a wide range of human-like behaviors, from expressing thoughts and emotions, to engaging in relationship-building with users, to refusing requests and maintaining boundaries.
arXiv:2609.13579v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Safety research often focuses on model-generated harms, but users may also direct hostility, coercion, and adversarial pressure at models. Understandin...
The paper introduces CoCoEval, a framework for evaluating large language model (LLM)–simulated conversations by detecting 10 types of inconsistent and uncollaborative behaviors at the turn level. Using CoCoEval, the authors compare human conversations with those generated by GPT‑4.1, GPT‑5.1, and Claude Opus 4, finding that LLMs produce far fewer such behaviors under vanilla prompting and that prompt engineering or fine‑tuning often over‑produces specific behaviors. The study highlights gaps between human and LLM‑simulated interactions that conventional Likert‑scale evaluations miss, raising concerns about using LLMs as proxies for human social interaction.
arXiv:2607. 19629v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models operating in emotionally sensitive contexts face a structural trilemma: when users in vulnerable states request information that may reinforce maladaptive attribution, current response architectures resolve the tension through protective restriction, uninflected facilitation, or unintegrated co-presence of both imperatives -- each preserving one objective at the cost of the other.
arXiv:2606. 14314v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM agents have rapidly evolved into autonomous systems, yet a persistent information gap remains between users and agents: communication is costly, while users' identical preferences further limit information exchange.
The paper investigates how large language models balance helpfulness and safety by refusing harmful queries while responding to benign ones. It decomposes safety-tuning responses into a boilerplate refusal statement and a rationale, finding that the statement causes false refusals by relying on superficial cues. Training on rationales alone reduces false refusals without compromising safety performance, suggesting that fine‑grained safety supervision is essential for better alignment.
arXiv:2606. 27709v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Recent work has shown that fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) for social warmth degrades factual reliability and increases sycophancy.
arXiv:2606. 02444v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent evidence shows that people with eating disorders (EDs) are increasingly seeking guidance, advice, and emotional support from Large Language Model (LLM)-based chat systems.
The paper introduces CarryOnBench, an interactive benchmark that tests whether large language models can revise their interpretation of user intent and recover utility while staying safe in multi‑turn conversations. Using 398 harmful‑looking queries with benign intents, the benchmark simulates 5,970 conversations across 14 models, evaluating both intent‑aligned utility and safety with a new metric called Ben‑Util. Results show that models often withhold information due to misinterpretation, but most can recover with clarifications, revealing failure modes such as unsafe and redundant recovery that single‑turn tests miss.
The paper introduces UC-Bench, a human‑annotated benchmark for detecting user‑side implicit conflicts in Human‑LLM dialogue, a problem largely overlooked compared to LLM‑side conflicts. Experiments show current LLMs struggle with these conflicts, especially when they stem from implicit incompatibilities in dialogue history. To address this, the authors propose SynUC, a constraint‑guided data synthesis method that generates a new training set, UC‑Data, which improves performance of lightweight LLMs on UC‑Bench compared to larger general‑purpose models and existing synthesis approaches.