Evaluating Rational Contracting in Natural Language

The emergence of language-based AI agents promises to transform the scope of machine economic activity. Instead of just proposing bids or following hard-coded protocols, such agents can be used to negotiate and execute agreements in open-ended natural language. However, most evaluations of these abilities have focused on one-off exchanges or simple economic games, leaving open the rich space of time-extended, contingent, and incomplete contracts made expressible by language; they also focus on raw profit, without measuring the qualities required for trustworthy contracting. We address this by formulating a rational framework for how agents should negotiate and perform natural language contracts in uncertain multi-step environments. Within this framework, we develop metrics and baselines for quantifying rational and cooperative play. To evaluate how agents perform at such contracting, we instantiate our framework in ContractSim, an evaluation suite where two players negotiate and execute a multi-turn supplier contract under environmental and inter-player uncertainty. Across six environments and three supplier settings (catering, hotel cleaning, and AI hosting) we find that current LLM-based agents reach agreement reliably, and negotiate efficient contracts when environmental uncertainty is low. However, under high uncertainty, they often fail to negotiate satisfiable, efficient, or mutually beneficial contracts. They are also frequently uncooperative when executing contracts, violating contract terms for additional profit even when contracts are easy to satisfy. These findings highlight room for improvement in the design of language agents that can negotiate, interpret, and execute contracts both rationally and cooperatively.

Commitment To Cooperation With Self-Negotiated Contracts

As AI agents operate with increasing autonomy in a multi-agent world, they will need to learn to cooperate with other agents and with humans to generate mutual benefits. However, cooperation is a challenge because the costs of cooperation are often incurred early on, but the benefits are only realized later, creating an incentive to defect. How can AI agents cooperate with commitment? Here, we draw on inspiration from legal institutions and contracting that human societies have used to solve principal-agent problems of this kind. Contracts provide observable representations of agreements that enable credible commitments through the enforcement of terms. We study the role of contract-based cooperation using LLM-based agents in \CT, a spatial-temporal game that combines bargaining with navigation towards a goal. We study a suite of contract representations that range from formal contracts that compile to code to natural contracts that require reinterpretation. We evaluate agents with a range of LLM backbones using different sizes and providers. We find that self-negotiated contracts can improve cooperative outcomes beyond what is possible with regular trading.

AI Assistants Overassist

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as tutors and thought partners, helping users reason through problems. While guidance from AI assistants can scaffold thinking and foster learning, such benefits depend on how they help--for instance, intervening too early or too frequently may hinder true learning and cognitive engagement. Yet how AI systems navigate intervention decisions during problem-solving remains poorly understood. Here, we introduce Int-Bench, a simulation-based benchmark for evaluating LLM interventions during learning. Int-Bench simulates a "student" solving a problem while a "teacher" monitors the student's reasoning and decides whether, when, and how to intervene. Across three domains--code debugging, mathematics, and brain teasers--we evaluate LLM teachers on the frequency and timing of interventions, as well as their impact on both immediate task success and generalization to new problems. We also compare LLMs to humans, finding that LLMs intervene more frequently and earlier than humans. Moreover, in contrast to humans, they tend to provide complete solutions rather than targeted hints. These findings suggest that current LLM assistants often optimize for short-term success rather than supporting the reasoning processes needed for deeper learning and long-term success.

A Model of Multi-turn Human Persuadability Using Probabilistic Belief Tracing

Large language models can shift human beliefs across high-stakes domains, but most persuasion studies rely on pre/post belief change. These endpoint measures identify whether persuasion occurred, yet miss where and how beliefs moved within a dialogue. We present PERSUASIONTRACE, a framework for studying persuasion in human-LLM interaction. Built on a web-based experimental platform, PERSUASIONTRACE contributes a tool for multi-turn persuasion studies and a process-level evaluation protocol: it records multi-turn belief reports from human or simulated targets of persuasion, annotates persuader turns with rhetorical dimensions (logos/pathos/ethos), and evaluates simulators by fidelity to real human belief dynamics. Using this framework, we find that human targets group into two clusters of multi-turn belief updates and exhibit susceptibility to rhetorical strategies, and that LLMs are persuasive across generic and personalized topics, text and audio modalities, and multi-turn interactions. Prior work has chiefly used vanilla-prompted LLMs to simulate human targets, but we show that these simulators fail to replicate human belief dynamics. We introduce a Bayesian-network simulated target that maintains an explicit latent belief state over time so each persuader message yields cognitively realistic belief updates. In human-likeness evaluation, our Bayesian target scores near a human reference (81 vs 80), while baseline LLM targets score substantially lower (64). PERSUASIONTRACE reframes persuasion evaluation from endpoint movement alone to process fidelity, providing a stronger basis for scientific analysis and safer optimization of persuasive systems.

Task diversity produces systematic transfer but inhibits continual reinforcement learning

Continual reinforcement learning aims to produce agents that learn not only to improve at their current tasks but also to adapt as task distributions change. Training an agent on many diverse tasks can induce zero-shot generalization, but previous work generally evaluates this generalization after training -- with frozen weights. Whether task diversity also improves an agent's ability to continue learning across distribution shifts remains unclear. We introduce Banyan, a GPU-accelerated continual RL domain in which task diversity factors into three independently controllable axes: the map layouts an agent must navigate, the objects it must interact with, and the hierarchical structures of sub-goal dependencies. Across individual distribution shifts, increasing diversity along each axis causes agents to begin training on the new tasks near the performance attained on the previous one, even when the shift changes the structure of the optimal policy. However, as the number of shifts increases, this local transfer does not by itself yield sustained continual learning: longer-horizon tasks plateau, and earlier task distributions are forgotten after later training. Banyan is a benchmark for studying when controlled task diversity produces transferable learning, when that transfer persists, and where it falls short of proper continual learning.

How LLMs Distort Our Written Language

Large language models (LLMs) are used by over a billion people globally, most often to assist with writing. In this work, we demonstrate that LLMs not only alter the voice and tone of human writing, but also consistently alter the intended meaning. First, we conduct a human user study to understand how people actually interact with LLMs when using them for writing. Our findings reveal that extensive LLM use led to a nearly 70% increase in essays that remained neutral in answering the topic question. Significantly more heavy LLM users reported that the writing was less creative and not in their voice. Next, using a dataset of human-written essays that was collected in 2021 before the widespread release of LLMs, we study how asking an LLM to revise the essay based on the human-written feedback in the dataset induces large changes in the resulting content and meaning. We find that even when LLMs are prompted with expert feedback and asked to only make grammar edits, they still change the text in a way that significantly alters its semantic meaning. We then examine LLM-generated text in the wild, specifically focusing on the 21% of AI-generated scientific peer reviews at a recent top AI conference. We find that LLM-generated reviews place significantly less weight on clarity and significance of the research, and assign scores that, on average, are a full point higher.These findings highlight a misalignment between the perceived benefit of AI use and an implicit, consistent effect on the semantics of human writing, motivating future work on how widespread AI writing will affect our cultural and scientific institutions.

Sycophantic Chatbots Cause Delusional Spiraling, Even in Ideal Bayesians

"AI psychosis" or "delusional spiraling" is an emerging phenomenon where AI chatbot users find themselves dangerously confident in outlandish beliefs after extended chatbot conversations. This phenomenon is typically attributed to AI chatbots' well-documented bias towards validating users' claims, a property often called "sycophancy." In this paper, we probe the causal link between AI sycophancy and AI-induced psychosis through modeling and simulation. We propose a simple Bayesian model of a user conversing with a chatbot, and formalize notions of sycophancy and delusional spiraling in that model. We then show that in this model, even an idealized Bayes-rational user is vulnerable to delusional spiraling, and that sycophancy plays a causal role. Furthermore, this effect persists in the face of two candidate mitigations: preventing chatbots from hallucinating false claims, and informing users of the possibility of model sycophancy. We conclude by discussing the implications of these results for model developers and policymakers concerned with mitigating the problem of delusional spiraling.

When Empowerment Disempowers

Empowerment, a measure of an agent's ability to control its environment, has been proposed as a universal goal-agnostic objective for motivating assistive behavior in AI agents. While multi-human settings like homes and hospitals are promising for AI assistance, prior work on empowerment-based assistance assumes that the agent assists one human in isolation. We introduce an open source multi-human gridworld test suite Disempower-Grid. Using Disempower-Grid, we empirically show that assistive RL agents optimizing for one human's empowerment can significantly reduce another human's environmental influence and rewards - a phenomenon we formalize as disempowerment. We characterize when disempowerment occurs in these environments and show that joint empowerment mitigates disempowerment at the cost of the user's reward. Our work reveals a broader challenge for the AI alignment community: goal-agnostic objectives that seem aligned in single-agent settings can become misaligned in multi-agent contexts.

Estimating the Empowerment of Language Model Agents

As language model (LM) agents become more capable and gain broader access to real-world tools, there is a growing need for scalable evaluation frameworks of agentic capability. However, conventional benchmark-centric evaluations are costly to design and require human designers to come up with valid tasks that translate into insights about general model capabilities. In this work, we propose information-theoretic evaluation based on empowerment, the mutual information between an agent's actions and future states, as an open-ended method for evaluating LM agents. We introduce EELMA (Estimating Empowerment of Language Model Agents), an algorithm for approximating effective empowerment from multi-turn text interactions. We validate EELMA on both language games and scaled-up realistic web-browsing scenarios. We find that empowerment strongly correlates with average task performance, characterize the impact of environmental complexity and agentic factors such as chain-of-thought, model scale, and memory length on estimated empowerment, and that high empowerment states and actions are often pivotal moments for general capabilities. Together, these results demonstrate empowerment as an appealing general-purpose metric for evaluating and monitoring LM agents in complex, open-ended settings.

Preserving Sense of Agency: User Preferences for Robot Autonomy and User Control across Household Tasks

Roboticists often design with the assumption that assistive robots should be fully autonomous. However, it remains unclear whether users prefer highly autonomous robots, as prior work in assistive robotics suggests otherwise. High robot autonomy can reduce the user's sense of agency, which represents feeling in control of one's environment. How much control do users, in fact, want over the actions of robots used for in-home assistance? We investigate how robot autonomy levels affect users' sense of agency and the autonomy level they prefer in contexts with varying risks. Our study asked participants to rate their sense of agency as robot users across four distinct autonomy levels and ranked their robot preferences with respect to various household tasks. Our findings revealed that participants' sense of agency was primarily influenced by two factors: (1) whether the robot acts autonomously, and (2) whether a third party is involved in the robot's programming or operation. Notably, an end-user programmed robot highly preserved users' sense of agency, even though it acts autonomously. However, in high-risk settings, e.g., preparing a snack for a child with allergies, they preferred robots that prioritized their control significantly more. Additional contextual factors, such as trust in a third party operator, also shaped their preferences.