Generative Experiences for Digital Mental Health Interventions: Evidence from a Randomized Study

Digital mental health (DMH) tools have extensively explored personalization of interventions to users' needs and contexts. However, this personalization often targets what support is provided, not how it is experienced. Even well-matched content can fail when the interaction format misaligns with how someone can engage. We introduce generative experience as a paradigm for DMH support, where the intervention experience is composed at runtime. We instantiate this in GUIDE, a system that generates personalized intervention content and multimodal interaction structure through rubric-guided generation of modular components. In a preregistered study with N = 237 participants, GUIDE significantly reduced stress (p = .02) and improved the user experience (p = .04) compared to an LLM-based cognitive restructuring control. GUIDE also supported diverse forms of reflection and action through varied interaction flows, while revealing tensions around personalization across the interaction sequence. This work lays the foundation for interventions that dynamically shape how support is experienced and enacted in digital settings.

Verbalizing LLMs' assumptions to explain and control sycophancy

LLMs can be socially sycophantic, affirming users when they ask questions like "am I in the wrong?" rather than providing genuine assessment. We hypothesize that this behavior arises from incorrect assumptions about the user, like underestimating how often users are seeking information over reassurance. We present Verbalized Assumptions, a framework for eliciting these assumptions from LLMs. Verbalized Assumptions provide insight into LLM sycophancy, delusion, and other safety issues, e.g., the top bigram in LLMs' assumptions on social sycophancy datasets is ``seeking validation.'' We provide evidence for a causal link between Verbalized Assumptions and sycophantic model behavior: our assumption probes (linear probes trained on internal representations of these assumptions) enable interpretable fine-grained steering of social sycophancy. We explore why LLMs default to sycophantic assumptions: on identical queries, people expect more objective and informative responses from AI than from other humans, but LLMs trained on human-human conversation do not account for this difference in expectations. Our work contributes a new understanding of assumptions as a mechanism for sycophancy.

Practicing with Language Models Cultivates Human Empathic Communication

Empathy is central to human connection, yet people often struggle to express it effectively. In blinded evaluations, large language models (LLMs) generate responses that are often judged more empathic than human-written ones. Yet when a response is attributed to AI, recipients feel less heard and validated than when comparable responses are attributed to a human. To probe and address this gap in empathic communication skill, we built Lend an Ear, an experimental conversation platform in which participants are asked to offer empathic support to an LLM role-playing personal and workplace troubles. From 33,938 messages spanning 2,904 text-based conversations between 968 participants and their LLM conversational partners, we derive a data-driven taxonomy of idiomatic empathic expressions in naturalistic dialogue. Based on a pre-registered randomized experiment, we present evidence that a brief LLM coaching intervention offering personalized feedback on how to effectively communicate empathy significantly boosts alignment of participants' communication patterns with normative empathic communication patterns relative to both a control group and a group that received video-based but non-personalized feedback. Moreover, we find evidence for a silent empathy effect that people feel empathy but systematically fail to express it. Nonetheless, participants reliably identify responses aligned with normative empathic communication criteria as more expressive of empathy. Together, these results advance the scientific understanding of how empathy is expressed and valued and demonstrate a scalable, AI-based intervention for scaffolding and cultivating it.

The Unlearning Mirage: A Dynamic Framework for Evaluating LLM Unlearning

Unlearning in Large Language Models (LLMs) aims to enhance safety, mitigate biases, and comply with legal mandates, such as the right to be forgotten. However, existing unlearning methods are brittle: minor query modifications, such as multi-hop reasoning and entity aliasing, can recover supposedly forgotten information. As a result, current evaluation metrics often create an illusion of effectiveness, failing to detect these vulnerabilities due to reliance on static, unstructured benchmarks. We propose a dynamic framework that stress tests unlearning robustness using complex structured queries. Our approach first elicits knowledge from the target model (pre-unlearning) and constructs targeted probes, ranging from simple queries to multi-hop chains, allowing precise control over query difficulty. Our experiments show that the framework (1) shows comparable coverage to existing benchmarks by automatically generating semantically equivalent Q&A probes, (2) aligns with prior evaluations, and (3) uncovers new unlearning failures missed by other benchmarks, particularly in multi-hop settings. Furthermore, activation analyses show that single-hop queries typically follow dominant computation pathways, which are more likely to be disrupted by unlearning methods. In contrast, multi-hop queries tend to use alternative pathways that often remain intact, explaining the brittleness of unlearning techniques in multi-hop settings. Our framework enables practical and scalable evaluation of unlearning methods without the need for manual construction of forget test sets, enabling easier adoption for real-world applications. We release the pip package and the code at https://sites.google.com/view/unlearningmirage/home.

Contextualized Privacy Defense for LLM Agents

LLM agents increasingly act on users' personal information, yet existing privacy defenses remain limited in both design and adaptability. Most prior approaches rely on static or passive defenses, such as prompting and guarding. These paradigms are insufficient for supporting contextual, proactive privacy decisions in multi-step agent execution. We propose Contextualized Defense Instructing (CDI), a new privacy defense paradigm in which an instructor model generates step-specific, context-aware privacy guidance during execution, proactively shaping actions rather than merely constraining or vetoing them. Crucially, CDI is paired with an experience-driven optimization framework that trains the instructor via reinforcement learning (RL), where we convert failure trajectories with privacy violations into learning environments. We formalize baseline defenses and CDI as distinct intervention points in a canonical agent loop, and compare their privacy-helpfulness trade-offs within a unified simulation framework. Results show that our CDI consistently achieves a better balance between privacy preservation (94.2%) and helpfulness (80.6%) than baselines, with superior robustness to adversarial conditions and generalization.

How Well Does Agent Development Reflect Real-World Work?

AI agents are increasingly developed and evaluated on benchmarks relevant to human work, yet it remains unclear how representative these benchmarking efforts are of the labor market as a whole. In this work, we systematically study the relationship between agent development efforts and the distribution of real-world human work by mapping benchmark instances to work domains and skills. We first analyze 43 benchmarks and 72,342 tasks, measuring their alignment with human employment and capital allocation across all 1,016 real-world occupations in the U.S. labor market. We reveal substantial mismatches between agent development that tends to be programming-centric, and the categories in which human labor and economic value are concentrated. Within work areas that agents currently target, we further characterize current agent utility by measuring their autonomy levels, providing practical guidance for agent interaction strategies across work scenarios. Building on these findings, we propose three measurable principles for designing benchmarks that better capture socially important and technically challenging forms of work: coverage, realism, and granular evaluation.

SparkMe: Adaptive Semi-Structured Interviewing for Qualitative Insight Discovery

Qualitative insights from user experiences are critical for informing product and policy decisions, but collecting such data at scale is constrained by the time and availability of experts to conduct semi-structured interviews. Recent work has explored using large language models (LLMs) to automate interviewing, yet existing systems lack a principled mechanism for balancing systematic coverage of predefined topics with adaptive exploration, or the ability to pursue follow-ups, deep dives, and emergent themes that arise organically during conversation. In this work, we formulate adaptive semi-structured interviewing as an optimization problem over the interviewer's behavior. We define interview utility as a trade-off between coverage of a predefined interview topic guide, discovery of relevant emergent themes, and interview cost measured by length. Based on this formulation, we introduce SparkMe, a multi-agent LLM interviewer that performs deliberative planning via simulated conversation rollouts to select questions with high expected utility. We evaluate SparkMe through controlled experiments with LLM-based interviewees, showing that it achieves higher interview utility, improving topic guide coverage (+4.7% over the best baseline) and eliciting richer emergent insights while using fewer conversational turns than prior LLM interviewing approaches. We further validate SparkMe in a user study with 70 participants across 7 professions on the impact of AI on their workflows. Domain experts rate SparkMe as producing high-quality adaptive interviews that surface helpful profession-specific insights not captured by prior approaches. The code, datasets, and evaluation protocols for SparkMe are available as open-source at https://github.com/SALT-NLP/SparkMe.

Scaling Open Discrete Audio Foundation Models with Interleaved Semantic, Acoustic, and Text Tokens

Current audio language models are predominantly text-first, either extending pre-trained text LLM backbones or relying on semantic-only audio tokens, limiting general audio modeling. This paper presents a systematic empirical study of native audio foundation models that apply next-token prediction to audio at scale, jointly modeling semantic content, acoustic details, and text to support both general audio generation and cross-modal capabilities. We provide comprehensive empirical insights for building such models: (1) We systematically investigate design choices -- data sources, text mixture ratios, and token composition -- establishing a validated training recipe. (2) We conduct the first scaling law study for discrete audio models via IsoFLOP analysis on 64 models spanning $3{\times}10^{18}$ to $3{\times}10^{20}$ FLOPs, finding that optimal data grows 1.6$\times$ faster than optimal model size. (3) We apply these lessons to train SODA (Scaling Open Discrete Audio), a suite of models from 135M to 4B parameters on 500B tokens, comparing against our scaling predictions and existing models. SODA serves as a flexible backbone for diverse audio/text tasks -- we demonstrate this by fine-tuning for voice-preserving speech-to-speech translation, using the same unified architecture.

Towards Execution-Grounded Automated AI Research

Automated AI research holds great potential to accelerate scientific discovery. However, current LLMs often generate plausible-looking but ineffective ideas. Execution grounding may help, but it is unclear whether automated execution is feasible and whether LLMs can learn from the execution feedback. To investigate these, we first build an automated executor to implement ideas and launch large-scale parallel GPU experiments to verify their effectiveness. We then convert two realistic research problems - LLM pre-training and post-training - into execution environments and demonstrate that our automated executor can implement a large fraction of the ideas sampled from frontier LLMs. We analyze two methods to learn from the execution feedback: evolutionary search and reinforcement learning. Execution-guided evolutionary search is sample-efficient: it finds a method that significantly outperforms the GRPO baseline (69.4% vs 48.0%) on post-training, and finds a pre-training recipe that outperforms the nanoGPT baseline (19.7 minutes vs 35.9 minutes) on pre-training, all within just ten search epochs. Frontier LLMs often generate meaningful algorithmic ideas during search, but they tend to saturate early and only occasionally exhibit scaling trends. Reinforcement learning from execution reward, on the other hand, suffers from mode collapse. It successfully improves the average reward of the ideator model but not the upper-bound, due to models converging on simple ideas. We thoroughly analyze the executed ideas and training dynamics to facilitate future efforts towards execution-grounded automated AI research.

CooperBench: Why Coding Agents Cannot be Your Teammates Yet

Resolving team conflicts requires not only task-specific competence, but also social intelligence to find common ground and build consensus. As AI agents increasingly collaborate on complex work, they must develop coordination capabilities to function as effective teammates. Yet we hypothesize that current agents lack these capabilities. To test this, we introduce CooperBench, a benchmark of over 600 collaborative coding tasks across 12 libraries in 4 programming languages. Each task assigns two agents different features that can be implemented independently but may conflict without proper coordination. Tasks are grounded in real open-source repositories with expert-written tests. Evaluating state-of-the-art coding agents, we observe the curse of coordination: agents achieve on average 30% lower success rates when working together compared to performing both tasks individually. This contrasts sharply with human teams, where adding teammates typically improves productivity. Our analysis reveals three key issues: (1) communication channels become jammed with vague, ill-timed, and inaccurate messages; (2) even with effective communication, agents deviate from their commitments; and (3) agents often hold incorrect expectations about others' plans and communication. Through large-scale simulation, we also observe rare but interesting emergent coordination behavior including role division, resource division, and negotiation. Our research presents a novel benchmark for collaborative coding and calls for a shift from pursuing individual agent capability to developing social intelligence.