arXiv:2606. 20632v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Multi-LLM systems use multiple language models to deliberate, judge each other's outputs, or coordinate as agents.
arXiv:2609.38465v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Unified multimodal models (UMMs) are increasingly designed around gradient conflict between understanding and generation objectives. The premise that...
arXiv:2607. 19361v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Most safety guardrails for large language models (LLMs) evaluate each prompt-response pair in isolation, which misses failures that arise only over a dialogue as benign turns compose into harm.
arXiv:2609.36700v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When conversing with large language models (LLMs), users often begin with a simple question and build towards a multi-hop question through follow-up...
arXiv:2606. 08081v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Repeated reference games test whether interlocutors replace their initially long descriptions with shorter, partner-specific conventions grounded in shared interaction history.
arXiv:2606.08081v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Repeated reference games test whether interlocutors replace their initially long descriptions with shorter, partner-specific expressions grou...
The article surveys multi‑turn conversational AI, highlighting its shift from isolated text prompts to sustained, multimodal interactions that involve clarifying goals, revising requests, and switching topics. It reviews literature across text‑only dialogue, AudioLLMs, multimodal and omni‑modal systems, and tool‑augmented agents, organizing findings around datasets, models, training, evaluation, and cross‑cutting challenges. The analysis reveals that while multimodal perception and action have progressed rapidly, systems still struggle with persistent memory, cross‑turn grounding, full‑duplex interaction, robust evaluation, and cultural alignment.
arXiv:2606. 16307v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Training tool-augmented LLM agents requires large corpora of multi-turn, tool-grounded conversational data that is expensive to annotate, privacy-constrained in production settings, and largely absent from public datasets.
The paper introduces a new way to detect drift in stateful language‑model pipelines by treating the sequence of prompt, response, and next prompt as a single unit of analysis. It defines two metrics—communication closure and normalized conditional action contribution—to quantify how well a response aligns with the subsequent prompt and how much it resolves the next reply. Experiments on over 2,200 dialogues show that swapping a response drastically reduces measured contribution, indicating that drift can be detected without labels or predefined rules.
arXiv:2609.37169v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Mid-training equips pretrained large language models with specialized and reasoning capabilities, but the returns of this stage are bounded since add...
arXiv:2602. 06941v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models can recover mid-generation from task-misaligned activation steering, producing explicit verbal restarts (e.
arXiv:2606. 14199v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models are increasingly deployed as human simulators for interactive evaluation and social simulation.
The paper introduces a counterfactually anchored evidence attribution approach for multi‑turn large language model safety failures. It presents a new dataset of 1,762 conversations, including adversarial, benign twins, and high‑risk vocabulary variants, and trains a lightweight hierarchical model that accurately predicts safety violations and attributes them to specific user turns and token spans. The model achieves high detection performance (F1 = 0.988) and significantly reduces adversarial confidence when top‑attributed tokens are removed, while maintaining low false‑positive rates on benign conversations.