arXiv:2608. 09939v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Production teams deploying LLM chat agents face a specific quality assurance gap: existing evaluation tools test individual responses or simulate social interactions, but none systematically verify whether real users can achieve their goals through multi-turn conversation.
By Alexandre Cristov\~ao Maiorano
arXiv:2607. 02975v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Effective agency in social environments depends on when an agent seeks knowledge, when it acts, and whether its actions are justified by acquired information.
By Dan C. Hsu, Luke Lu
arXiv:2606. 05563v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating LLM mediators remains challenging, as mediation unfolds as a real-time trajectory shaped by disputants' shifting emotions, intentions, and context.
By Taewon Yun, Hyeonseong Park, Jeonghwan Choi, Hayoon Park, Yeeun Choi, Hwanjun Song
arXiv:2608. 14613v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Modern LLM-agent frameworks increasingly interoperate through standards such as Anthropic's Model Context Protocol (MCP) for agent-to-tool access and Google's Agent2Agent (A2A) protocol for agent delegation and negotiation.
By Wael Albayaydh, Rui Zhao
arXiv:2606. 08200v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating LLM-powered interactive social agents is challenging because socially relevant behaviors depend not only on isolated outputs, but also on prior interactions, social roles, and downstream actions.
By Hyogon Ryu, Jeonghwan Kim, Yewon Lim, Chaeun Lee, Jeongwook Kim, Donghoon Ham
arXiv:2607. 20773v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have shifted human--computer interaction from `traditional'' interface journeys toward more conversational exchanges.
By Zeshu Zhu, Natalie Friedman, Kevin Weatherwax, Emily Eiben