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.
The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
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.
arXiv:2610.24520v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: In long-term interactions with large language model (LLM) agents, users reveal habits through their choices and actions. These habits capture impli...
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.
arXiv:2609.01257v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As LLM-based human simulators are increasingly used for policy, evaluation, and training, they must faithfully reproduce real behavioral patterns. Whil...
arXiv:2609.07594v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Conversational Task Assistants (CTAs) are multimodal dialogue systems that support users in complex real-world tasks such as cooking and DIY through...
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.