CoReflect: Conversational Evaluation via Co-Evolutionary Simulation and Reflective Rubric Refinement

Evaluating conversational systems in multi-turn settings remains a fundamental challenge. Conventional pipelines typically rely on manually defined rubrics and fixed conversational context$-$a static approach that limits coverage and fails to capture the diverse, emergent behaviors of dialogue models. To address this, we introduce CoReflect (Conversational Evaluation via Co-Evolutionary Simulation and Reflective Rubric Refinement), which unifies dialogue simulation and evaluation into an adaptive, iterative process. CoReflect employs a conversation planner that generates structured templates to guide a user simulator through diverse, goal-directed dialogues. Subsequently, a reflective analyzer processes these dialogues to identify systematic behavioral patterns and automatically refine the evaluation rubrics. Crucially, the insights from the conversation analysis are fed back into the planner to update conversation templates for subsequent iterations. This co-evolution loop ensures that the complexity of test cases and the diagnostic precision of rubrics improve in tandem. By minimizing human intervention, CoReflect provides a scalable and self-refining methodology that allows evaluation protocols to adapt alongside the rapidly advancing capabilities of dialogue models.

Leveraging Large Language Models for Hybrid Workplace Decision Support

Large Language Models (LLMs) hold the potential to perform a variety of text processing tasks and provide textual explanations for proposed actions or decisions. In the era of hybrid work, LLMs can provide intelligent decision support for workers who are designing their hybrid work plans. In particular, they can offer suggestions and explanations to workers balancing numerous decision factors, thereby enhancing their work experience. In this paper, we present a decision support model for workspaces in hybrid work environments, leveraging the reasoning skill of LLMs. We first examine LLM's capability of making suitable workspace suggestions. We find that its reasoning extends beyond the guidelines in the prompt and the LLM can manage the trade-off among the available resources in the workspaces. We conduct an extensive user study to understand workers' decision process for workspace choices and evaluate the effectiveness of the system. We observe that a worker's decision could be influenced by the LLM's suggestions and explanations. The participants in our study find the system to be convenient, regardless of whether reasons are provided or not. Our results show that employees can benefit from the LLM-empowered system for their workspace selection in hybrid workplace.

Leveraging Large Language Models for Collective Decision-Making

In various work contexts, such as meeting scheduling, collaborating, and project planning, collective decision-making is essential but often challenging due to diverse individual preferences, varying work focuses, and power dynamics among members. To address this, we propose a system leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) to facilitate group decision-making by managing conversations and balancing preferences among individuals. Our system extracts individual preferences and suggests options that satisfy a significant portion of the members. We apply this system to corporate meeting scheduling. We create synthetic employee profiles and simulate conversations at scale, leveraging LLMs to evaluate the system. Our results indicate efficient coordination with reduced interactions between members and the LLM-based system. The system also effectively refines proposed options over time, ensuring their quality and equity. Finally, we conduct a survey study involving human participants to assess our system's ability to aggregate preferences and reasoning. Our findings show that the system exhibits strong performance in both dimensions.