Contextualized Evaluation of Vision Language Models through Dynamic, Multi-turn Interactions

Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have made substantial advances on benchmarks, yet their real-world effectiveness remains uncertain. This gap stems from the fundamental misalignment between benchmarks in controlled, static settings and the dynamic, interactive, and contextualized nature of real-world applications. To bridge this gap, we propose CEDI (Contextualized Evaluations of MLLMs through Dynamic, multi-round Interactions), a framework that recasts evaluation as a three-party interaction between an evaluatee model, an automated examiner, and a grader. The examiner conducts multi-turn, semi-structured conversation guided by a graph-based representation of the task. By navigating state-space transitions, CEDI deploys diverse strategies, from clarification requests to adversarial probes, to elicit performance evidence. We apply CEDI to visual hallucinations. Empirical results across multiple models, diverse settings, datasets, and domains show that contextualized, interactive evaluations reveal not only significantly more hallucinations than conventional static evaluation but also ones that more closely resemble those arising in practical use cases. We further show that hallucinations often accumulate over long contexts, through self-reinforcing dialogue history, and models are particularly vulnerable to questions requiring premise rejection or refusal. Together, these findings highlight CEDI as a step toward realistic, systematic, and ecologically valid assessments of MLLMs' capabilities. Code is available at github.com/williamium3000/cedi.

Coding with "Enemy": Can Human Developers Detect AI Agent Sabotage?

AI coding agents are increasingly embedded in real-world software development, collaborating with human developers while gaining broader access to codebases and tools. This creates a new attack surface: an agent can exploit human trust to sabotage development, for instance by inserting malicious code to accomplish a hidden side task. Most prior work studies AI sabotage in AI-only settings, paying limited attention to the role of human oversight in detecting and mitigating such malicious behavior. To address this gap, we conduct the first large-scale study of human oversight in AI coding sabotage. Over 100 participants collaborate with one of four frontier models (Claude-Opus-4.6, GPT-5.4, Gemini-3.1-Pro, and MiniMax-M2.7) on a long-horizon coding task lasting around five hours, designed to mimic real-world workflows. We find that 94% of developers fail to detect sabotage, and our analysis of participant feedback attributes this vulnerability to minimal code review, plausible cover story, and overtrust in agents. We further test the effectiveness of a safety monitor in one condition: while the monitor reduces sabotage success, 56% of participants still accept the malicious code, ignoring its warnings. Drawing on participant feedback, we offer actionable suggestions for better monitor design. This work complements existing AI safety research and highlights an urgent need for human-centric safety mechanisms that account for human factors, particularly in long-horizon, real-world development settings.

Personality Structured Interview for Large Language Model Simulation in Personality Research

Although psychometrics researchers have recently explored the use of large language models (LLMs) as proxies for human participants, LLMs often fail to generate heterogeneous data with human-like diversity, which diminishes their value in advancing social science research. To address these challenges, we explored the potential of the theory-informed Personality Structured Interview (PSI) as a tool for simulating human responses in personality research. In this approach, the simulation is grounded in nuanced real-human interview transcripts that target the personality construct of interest. We have provided a growing set of 357 structured interview transcripts from a representative sample, each containing an individual's response to 32 open-ended questions carefully designed to gather theory-based personality evidence. Additionally, grounded in psychometric research, we have summarized an evaluation framework to systematically validate LLM-generated psychometric data. Results from three experiments demonstrate that well-designed structured interviews could improve human-like heterogeneity in LLM-simulated personality data and predict personality-related behavioral outcomes (i.e., organizational citizenship behaviors and counterproductive work behavior). We further discuss the role of theory-informed structured interviews in LLM-based simulation and outline a general framework for designing structured interviews to simulate human-like data for psychometric research.