arXiv AI By Rebecca M. M. Hicke, Kiran Tomlinson

Adopt $\neq$ Adapt: Longitudinal Analyses of LLM Conversations in the Wild

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Aug 7

LUNAR: Benchmarking Personalized Large Language Models on UNiversal User BehAvioR Logs

arXiv:2608. 05246v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing personalized LLM benchmarks primarily rely on textual personas or isolated behavioral signals, providing limited evaluation of cross-domain behavioral personalization, where responses must be grounded in heterogeneous daily-life activities.

By Jiahao Zhang, Yongzhi Tong, Zelin Fu, Pengde Zhao, Yanmei Jiang, Jiang Feng, Min Yang
arXiv AI
Oct 28

BehaveRec: When Does Long-Term Behavioral History Help Sequential Recommendation? A Study with Session, History, and Community Signals

BehaveRec is a three-signal framework that combines a causal session transformer, a bidirectional User History Encoder over a 90‑day window, and a GraphSAGE module built from behavioral embedding similarity. On an industrial dataset of 137M sequences, it improves R@5 by +3.2% over SASRec, and its advantage grows with user history length, becoming significant for users with 101+ interactions. The study also establishes a practical deployment rule of roughly 20 interactions per user for when long‑term history and behavioral‑graph signals are worthwhile.

By Aysenur Inan, Reza Yousefi Maragheh, Jayesh Uddhav Kudase, Selene Xu, Kaushiki Nag, Jianpeng Xu, Sushant Kumar
arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 23

On the Behavioral Traits of LLM Agents

The paper introduces A-B-D, a method that infers personality traits of large language model agents from their behavioral data, combining functional actions and linguistic outputs across 345,667 real-world trajectories of 80 models. After filtering for stability and discriminability, 79 features are reduced to six reliable factors—two functional and four linguistic—revealing differences such as Claude‑Sonnet‑4.6’s planfulness versus GPT‑5.5’s low energy. The study also demonstrates a weak correlation between these inferred traits and agents’ self-reported Big Five scores, highlighting a knowledge‑action gap.

By Haokai Zhao, Jie Gao, Yunze Xiao, Xintao Wang, Weihao Xuan, Aditya Joshi, Mark Dredze, Jen-tse Huang