Explain Like I'm 5 or Whatever I Choose: Evaluating the Interactive Potential of Language Model Responses

Evaluations of large language models (LLMs) in scientific information seeking tasks have become increasingly use-centric, such as conducting live or multi-turn evaluations with real users. These evaluations still assume a single, static chat interface, but as models are integrated into new interfaces, evaluations must shift to incorporate interface-specific criteria. We propose a new evaluation framework based on a formative study with $16$ participants that tests models' ability to generate multiple responses to one query that differ along an interpretable axis of language (language complexity), inspired by direct manipulation interfaces from human-centered design literature. We evaluate GPT-5.1, GPT-5 mini, Claude Sonnet 4.5 + Thinking, and DeepSeek-V3.1 by generating 5 responses at different levels of language complexity for $98$ scientific queries. While models vary complexity across responses, most changes remain inconsistent, with the best performing model (Claude Sonnet 4.5) only shifting reliable complexity measures in the correct direction $46\%$ of the time. Our findings hold with increased sample size and alternative complexity levels.

FOXGLOVE: Understanding Goal-Oriented and Anchored Writing Feedback from Experts and LLMs on Argumentative Essays

While large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate writing feedback, there remains no systematic comparison of LLM and expert feedback on the dimensions that writing research identifies as central to revision: goal-orientation, anchoring to specific sentences, and prioritization. We introduce FOXGLOVE, a dataset of 696 feedback comments written by trained writing instructors on 69 twelfth-grade argumentative essays, paired with 1,644 comments generated from four frontier LLMs under a shared protocol, totaling 2,340 comments. We provide expert quality ratings on a subset of both instructor and LLM comments. We find that instructors and LLMs distribute feedback similarly across goals and essay positions, yet instructors and models diverge on the specific sentences on which to provide feedback. Additionally, we find that models tend to write more complex feedback and use fewer questions than instructors. LLM feedback also receives higher ratings on most dimensions of quality, as rated by instructors, but much of this advantage appears to be attributable to lengthier comments. FOXGLOVE enables systematic comparison of where human and LLM feedback align, diverge, and differ.

Re-Centering Humans in LLM Personalization

Despite growing interest, most evaluations of large language models' (LLMs') personalization abilities have relied on synthetic data. It remains unclear how well current personalization systems work for real users. In this paper, we study the gap in LLM personalization performance when using synthetic versus human data. We collect human conversations (550 conversations) and judgments across three stages of personalization: extracting user attributes from conversations (5,949 judgments), pairing relevant attributes with new prompts (11,919), and incorporating relevant attributes into a personalized response (1,101). Incorporating human data reveals system limitations at each stage. Models struggle to extract attributes from human conversations, disagree with human judgments on relevant attributes, and generate personalized responses that humans judge no better than generic responses (though that LLM judges widely rate as better). We introduce two lightweight training-based interventions that shift automated personalization evaluation closer to human data in our first two stages. However, in our third stage we find that learned reward models achieve only modest correlation with human ratings, suggesting that human-aligned personalization quality judgments are difficult to model directly. Our collected data provides a foundation for studying how models should extract, select, and incorporate user information in ways that humans find useful.

SocialVeil: Probing Social Intelligence of Language Agents under Communication Barriers

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly evaluated in interactive environments to test their social intelligence. However, existing benchmarks often assume idealized communication between agents, limiting our ability to diagnose whether LLMs can maintain and repair interactions in more realistic, imperfect settings. To close this gap, we present \textsc{SocialVeil}, a social learning environment that can simulate social interaction under cognitive-difference-induced communication barriers. Grounded in a systematic literature review of communication challenges in human interaction, \textsc{SocialVeil} introduces three representative types of such disruption, \emph{semantic vagueness}, \emph{sociocultural mismatch}, and \emph{emotional interference}. We also introduce two barrier-aware evaluation metrics, \emph{unresolved confusion} and \emph{mutual understanding}, to evaluate interaction quality under impaired communication. Experiments across 720 scenarios and four frontier LLMs show that barriers consistently impair performance, with mutual understanding reduced by over 45\% on average, and confusion elevated by nearly 50\%. Human evaluations validate the fidelity of these simulated barriers (ICC$\approx$0.78, Pearson r$\approx$0.80). We further demonstrate that adaptation strategies (Repair Instruction and Interactive learning) only have a modest effect far from barrier-free performance. This work takes a step toward bringing social interaction environments closer to real-world communication, opening opportunities for exploring the social intelligence of LLM agents.

Learning User Preferences Through Interaction for Long-Term Collaboration

As conversational agents accumulate experience collaborating with users, adapting to user preferences is essential for fostering long-term relationships and improving collaboration quality over time. We introduce MultiSessionCollab, a benchmark that evaluates how well agents can learn user preferences and leverage them to improve collaboration quality throughout multiple sessions. To develop agents that succeed in this setting, we present long-term collaborative agents equipped with a memory that persists and refines user preference as interaction experience accumulates. Moreover, we demonstrate that learning signals can be derived from user simulator behavior in MultiSessionCollab to train agents to generate more comprehensive reflections and update their memory more effectively. Extensive experiments show that equipping agents with memory improves long-term collaboration, yielding higher task success rates, more efficient interactions, and reduced user effort. Finally, we conduct a human user study that demonstrates that memory helps improve user experience in real-world settings.

Designing Beyond Language: Sociotechnical Barriers in AI Health Technologies for Limited English Proficiency

Limited English proficiency (LEP) patients in the U.S. face systemic barriers to healthcare beyond language and interpreter access, encompassing procedural and institutional constraints. AI advances may support communication and care through on-demand translation and visit preparation, but also risk exacerbating existing inequalities. We conducted storyboard-driven interviews with 14 patient navigators to explore how AI could shape care experiences for Spanish-speaking LEP individuals. We identified tensions around linguistic and cultural misunderstandings, privacy concerns, and opportunities and risks for AI to augment care workflows. Participants highlighted structural factors that can undermine trust in AI systems, including sensitive information disclosure, unstable technology access, and low digital literacy. While AI tools can potentially alleviate social barriers and institutional constraints, there are risks of misinformation and uprooting human camaraderie. Our findings contribute design considerations for AI that support LEP patients and care teams via rapport-building, education, and language support, and minimizing disruptions to existing practices.

Personalized Real-time Jargon Support for Online Meetings

Effective interdisciplinary communication is frequently hindered by domain-specific jargon. To explore the jargon barriers in-depth, we conducted a formative diary study with 16 professionals, revealing critical limitations in current jargon-management strategies during workplace meetings. Based on these insights, we designed ParseJargon, an interactive LLM-powered system providing real-time personalized jargon identification and explanations tailored to users' individual backgrounds. A controlled experiment comparing ParseJargon against baseline (no support) and general-purpose (non-personalized) conditions demonstrated that personalized jargon support significantly enhanced participants' comprehension, engagement, and appreciation of colleagues' work, whereas general-purpose support negatively affected engagement. A follow-up field study validated ParseJargon's usability and practical value in real-time meetings, highlighting both opportunities and limitations for real-world deployment. Our findings contribute insights into designing personalized jargon support tools, with implications for broader interdisciplinary and educational applications.

Uncertainty in Action: Confidence Elicitation in Embodied Agents

Expressing confidence is challenging for embodied agents navigating dynamic multimodal environments, where uncertainty arises from both perception and decision-making processes. We present the first work investigating embodied confidence elicitation in open-ended multimodal environments. We introduce Elicitation Policies, which structure confidence assessment across inductive, deductive, and abductive reasoning, along with Execution Policies, which enhance confidence calibration through scenario reinterpretation, action sampling, and hypothetical reasoning. Evaluating agents in calibration and failure prediction tasks within the Minecraft environment, we show that structured reasoning approaches, such as Chain-of-Thoughts, improve confidence calibration. However, our findings also reveal persistent challenges in distinguishing uncertainty, particularly under abductive settings, underscoring the need for more sophisticated embodied confidence elicitation methods.

Automatic Detection of Research Values from Scientific Abstracts Across Computer Science Subfields

The field of Computer science (CS) has rapidly evolved over the past few decades, providing computational tools and methodologies to various fields and forming new interdisciplinary communities. This growth in CS has significantly impacted institutional practices and relevant research communities. Therefore, it is crucial to explore what specific research values, known as basic and fundamental beliefs that guide or motivate research attitudes or actions, CS-related research communities promote. Prior research has manually analyzed research values from a small sample of machine learning papers. No prior work has studied the automatic detection of research values in CS from large-scale scientific texts across different research subfields. This paper introduces a detailed annotation scheme featuring ten research values that guide CS-related research. Based on the scheme, we build value classifiers to scale up the analysis and present a systematic study over 226,600 paper abstracts from 32 CS-related subfields and 86 popular publishing venues over ten years.

Tree-of-Debate: Multi-Persona Debate Trees Elicit Critical Thinking for Scientific Comparative Analysis

With the exponential growth of research facilitated by modern technology and improved accessibility, scientific discoveries have become increasingly fragmented within and across fields. This makes it challenging to assess the significance, novelty, incremental findings, and equivalent ideas between related works, particularly those from different research communities. Large language models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated strong quantitative and qualitative reasoning abilities, and multi-agent LLM debates have shown promise in handling complex reasoning tasks by exploring diverse perspectives and reasoning paths. Inspired by this, we introduce Tree-of-Debate (ToD), a framework which converts scientific papers into LLM personas that debate their respective novelties. To emphasize structured, critical reasoning rather than focusing solely on outcomes, ToD dynamically constructs a debate tree, enabling fine-grained analysis of independent novelty arguments within scholarly articles. Through experiments on scientific literature across various domains, evaluated by expert researchers, we demonstrate that ToD generates informative arguments, effectively contrasts papers, and supports researchers in their literature review.