SIT‑Eval is a framework that evaluates conversational agents by sampling diverse situations at each turn and judging responses against situational rules. It uses an LLM‑interlocutor to generate uniformly sampled contexts and a context‑aware LLM‑judge to assess rule compliance. Benchmarking eight large language models on 1,292 turns uncovered hidden failure modes, showing that models with similar overall scores can differ greatly in rule adherence, especially in ambiguity clarification and Socratic questioning.
By Ravil Mussabayev, Saveliy Zavertyaev, Dmitriy Parpulov, Andrey Savchenko
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.
By Sunnie S. Y. Kim, Margit Bowler, Leon A Gatys
arXiv:2603. 16859v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Omni-modal large language models (OLMs) redefine human-machine interaction by natively integrating audio, vision, and text.
By Tianyu Xie, Jinfa Huang, Yuexiao Ma, Rongfang Luo, Yan Yang, Wang Chen, Yuhui Zeng, Yixuan Zou, Qingchuan Ma, Zhiqiang Lu, Ruize Fang, Xiawu Zheng, Jiebo Luo, Rongrong Ji
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.
By Jinqiang Wang, Tao Zhu, Huansheng Ning
arXiv:2610.17738v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: End-to-end (E2E) full-duplex spoken language models (FD-SLMs) enable simutanous listening and speaking continously, requiring models to take appropriat...
By Jiaheng Dong, Shihong Tan, Gongping Huang, Jean Honorio, Abhirup Ghosh, Ting Dang
arXiv:2610.09163v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Task-oriented conversational agents remain fragile under real world conversation scenarios as they rarely follow a predictable script, especially when...
By Arkajyoti Chakraborty, Aryan Tayal, Ishika Agarwal, Tanner Sorensen, Justin Chiu, Alessandro Di Bari, Neha Gupta, Andreas Stolcke
arXiv:2601.12208v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Evaluating conversational systems in multi-turn settings remains a fundamental challenge. Conventional pipelines typically rely on manually defined...
By Yunzhe Li, Richie Yueqi Feng, Tianxin Wei, Chin-Chia Hsu
ThreadBench is a benchmark that evaluates how well large language model (LLM) agents simulate real-world Reddit discussions, using 9,817 real threads across 8 domains and 116 subdomains. It compares generated and real threads on 12 metrics grouped into uniformity, expression, tone, and interaction. The authors also introduce Thread-Prompt-based Discussion Generation (ThreadPDG), a Planner-Writer framework that learns thread growth from real seeds and achieves high pass rates on ThreadBench, outperforming baseline methods and matching real discussions in 78.7% of human evaluations.
By Yaoning Yu, Ye Yu, John Sciarappo, Haojing Luo, Kai-min Chang, Yi-Chia Wang, Haohan Wang
TurnBench is a new multi‑domain benchmark for evaluating turn‑taking dynamics in spoken dialogue. It comprises a 30‑hour hand‑labeled corpus of dyadic human conversations, a standardized evaluation protocol for end‑of‑turn and interruption detection, and covers six distinct interaction styles with triple annotation. The benchmark also provides a 104‑hour training set, a public leaderboard, and an interactive dataset viewer at https://turnbench.sesame.com.
By Freeman Jiang, Ramon Sanabria, Soham Deshmukh, Bandhav Veluri, Simon Michael Vuch Williams, Elliott K. Suen, Garreth Lee, Kevin Yoonho Choi, Takuya Umeki, Riku Kubo, Sathvik Udupa, Chien-yu Huang, Shih-Yun Shan Kuan, Zhuoyan Tao, Satyapriya Krishna, Sefik Emre Eskimez, Yu Tsao, Hung-yi Lee, Shinji Watanabe
The paper introduces ContraTalk, a benchmark that tests whether dialogue models truly use acoustic cues or rely on transcript shortcuts. It formalizes cross‑modal disagreement, creates conflict and consistent QA examples, and proposes an Audio Twin representation to expose acoustic evidence to models. Experiments show that while text‑only LLMs perform well on consistent cases, they falter on conflict cases, and AudioLLMs only partially mitigate this issue.
By Yen-Ju Lu, Yuzhe Wang, Yaohan Guan, Xiluo He, Jiarui Hai, Mingrui Liang, Kaavya Chaparala, Thomas Thebaud, Laureano Moro-Velazquez, Najim Dehak, Jesus Villalba
The study introduces a World Values Survey–grounded simulation framework to test whether large language model agents can faithfully represent diverse human value systems. In about 4,000 conversations with 1,200 personas across three models, more than half of the agents failed to express their assigned value profiles from the start, and only 2–7% drifted over time. The results show systematic deviations from the intended value distributions and reveal that simulated dialogues differ from human discussions in their balance of stylistic consistency and semantic diversity.
By Farah Atif, Sougata Saha, Monojit Choudhury
The paper introduces FIGS, a dual‑axis evaluation framework for multi‑turn sycophancy that avoids penalizing empathy. It uses a 10‑turn conversational simulator with 500 diverse scenarios to test whether models stay truthful while keeping praise proportional, and whether they show calibrated validation of user feelings. The study finds that current models either drift toward sycophancy or become overly detached, highlighting an unresolved trade‑off in sustained dialogue.
By Sidharth Pulipaka, Ruta Binkyte, Ivaxi Sheth, Sahar Abdelnabi