LLMs Get Lost in Evolving User Intent

As LLMs become more capable, they are increasingly deployed as collaborative agents, taking on user-delegated tasks through iterative interaction. Yet genuine interaction is inherently dynamic: users rarely specify their intent upfront, instead disclosing, revising, and reshaping it as the conversation unfolds. Despite this, LLMs are still predominantly evaluated or trained in single-turn, fully-specified settings, leaving open a fundamental question: how well do LLMs track and act on user intent as it evolves over the course of a conversation? To study this, we introduce a framework that transforms static, single-turn tasks into dynamic multi-turn conversations in which the user's intent evolves across turns--incrementally revealed, revised, and at times redirected mid-conversation--while preserving each task's original evaluation protocol, enabling existing benchmarks to be reused as controlled testbeds without new annotation. Across multiple tasks, we surface a consistent phenomenon: strong static-setting performance does not transfer to the evolving-intent setting, with substantial drops across model families. Our findings point to a fundamental gap: today's LLMs do not yet faithfully track and act on the user's evolving intent, a capability invisible to static evaluation yet critical for future collaborative agents.

KRISTEVA: Close Reading as a Novel Task for Benchmarking Interpretive Reasoning

Each year, tens of millions of essays are written and graded in college-level English courses. Students are asked to analyze literary and cultural texts through a process known as close reading, in which they gather textual details to formulate evidence-based arguments. Despite being viewed as a basis for critical thinking and widely adopted as a required element of university coursework, close reading has never been evaluated on large language models (LLMs), and multi-discipline benchmarks like MMLU do not include literature as a subject. To fill this gap, we present KRISTEVA, the first close reading benchmark for evaluating interpretive reasoning, consisting of 1331 multiple-choice questions adapted from classroom data. With KRISTEVA, we propose three progressively more difficult sets of tasks to approximate different elements of the close reading process, which we use to test how well LLMs may seem to understand and reason about literary works: 1) extracting stylistic features, 2) retrieving relevant contextual information from parametric knowledge, and 3) multi-hop reasoning between style and external contexts. Our baseline results find that, while state-of-the-art LLMs possess some college-level close reading competency (accuracy 49.7% - 69.7%), their performances still trail those of experienced human evaluators on 10 out of our 11 tasks.

LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation

Large Language Models (LLMs) are conversational interfaces. As such, LLMs have the potential to assist their users not only when they can fully specify the task at hand, but also to help them define, explore, and refine what they need through multi-turn conversational exchange. Although analysis of LLM conversation logs has confirmed that underspecification occurs frequently in user instructions, LLM evaluation has predominantly focused on the single-turn, fully-specified instruction setting. In this work, we perform large-scale simulation experiments to compare LLM performance in single- and multi-turn settings. Our experiments confirm that all the top open- and closed-weight LLMs we test exhibit significantly lower performance in multi-turn conversations than single-turn, with an average drop of 39% across six generation tasks. Analysis of 200,000+ simulated conversations decomposes the performance degradation into two components: a minor loss in aptitude and a significant increase in unreliability. We find that LLMs often make assumptions in early turns and prematurely attempt to generate final solutions, on which they overly rely. In simpler terms, we discover that *when LLMs take a wrong turn in a conversation, they get lost and do not recover*.

EvalAgent: Discovering Implicit Evaluation Criteria from the Web

Evaluation of language model outputs on structured writing tasks is typically conducted with a number of desirable criteria presented to human evaluators or large language models (LLMs). For instance, on a prompt like "Help me draft an academic talk on coffee intake vs research productivity", a model response may be evaluated for criteria like accuracy and coherence. However, high-quality responses should do more than just satisfy basic task requirements. An effective response to this query should include quintessential features of an academic talk, such as a compelling opening, clear research questions, and a takeaway. To help identify these implicit criteria, we introduce EvalAgent, a novel framework designed to automatically uncover nuanced and task-specific criteria. EvalAgent first mines expert-authored online guidance. It then uses this evidence to propose diverse, long-tail evaluation criteria that are grounded in reliable external sources. Our experiments demonstrate that the grounded criteria produced by EvalAgent are often implicit (not directly stated in the user's prompt), yet specific (high degree of lexical precision). Further, EvalAgent criteria are often not satisfied by initial responses but they are actionable, such that responses can be refined to satisfy them. Finally, we show that combining LLM-generated and EvalAgent criteria uncovers more human-valued criteria than using LLMs alone.

Voice Interaction With Conversational AI Could Facilitate Thoughtful Reflection and Substantive Revision in Writing

Writing well requires not only expressing ideas but also refining them through revision, a process facilitated by reflection. Prior research suggests that feedback delivered through dialogues, such as those in writing center tutoring sessions, can help writers reflect more thoughtfully on their work compared to static feedback. Recent advancements in multi-modal large language models (LLMs) now offer new possibilities for supporting interactive and expressive voice-based reflection in writing. In particular, we propose that LLM-generated static feedback can be repurposed as conversation starters, allowing writers to seek clarification, request examples, and ask follow-up questions, thereby fostering deeper reflection on their writing. We argue that voice-based interaction can naturally facilitate this conversational exchange, encouraging writers' engagement with higher-order concerns, facilitating iterative refinement of their reflections, and reduce cognitive load compared to text-based interactions. To investigate these effects, we propose a formative study exploring how text vs. voice input influence writers' reflection and subsequent revisions. Findings from this study will inform the design of intelligent and interactive writing tools, offering insights into how voice-based interactions with LLM-powered conversational agents can support reflection and revision.

AI-Slop to AI-Polish? Aligning Language Models through Edit-Based Writing Rewards and Test-time Computation

AI-generated text is proliferating across domains, from creative writing and journalism to marketing content and scientific articles. Models can follow user-provided instructions to generate coherent and grammatically correct outputs but in this work, we study a more fundamental question: how do we evaluate and improve the writing quality of AI-generated text? Writing quality assessment has received less attention from the community, in part because it is fundamentally subjective and requires expertise. We first introduce the Writing Quality Benchmark (WQ) by consolidating five writing-preference datasets into 4,729 writing quality judgments. Our experiments show that competitive baselines, including state-of-the-art LLMs that excel at reasoning tasks, barely outperform random baselines on WQ. We then train specialized Writing Quality Reward Models (WQRM) of various sizes for writing quality assessment that demonstrate strong generalization on four out-of-distribution test sets and 74% accuracy on the WQ benchmark. To further show WQRM's practical benefits during inference, we leverage additional test-time compute to generate and rank multiple candidate revisions, allowing us to select higher-quality outputs from an initial draft. Human evaluation with 9 experienced writers confirm that WQRM-based selection produces writing samples preferred by experts 66% overall, and 72.2% when the reward gap is larger than 1 point. We release our datasets and models to encourage community engagement with writing quality assessment and development of AI writing systems better aligned with human preferences.

BingoGuard: LLM Content Moderation Tools with Risk Levels

Malicious content generated by large language models (LLMs) can pose varying degrees of harm. Although existing LLM-based moderators can detect harmful content, they struggle to assess risk levels and may miss lower-risk outputs. Accurate risk assessment allows platforms with different safety thresholds to tailor content filtering and rejection. In this paper, we introduce per-topic severity rubrics for 11 harmful topics and build BingoGuard, an LLM-based moderation system designed to predict both binary safety labels and severity levels. To address the lack of annotations on levels of severity, we propose a scalable generate-then-filter framework that first generates responses across different severity levels and then filters out low-quality responses. Using this framework, we create BingoGuardTrain, a training dataset with 54,897 examples covering a variety of topics, response severity, styles, and BingoGuardTest, a test set with 988 examples explicitly labeled based on our severity rubrics that enables fine-grained analysis on model behaviors on different severity levels. Our BingoGuard-8B, trained on BingoGuardTrain, achieves the state-of-the-art performance on several moderation benchmarks, including WildGuardTest and HarmBench, as well as BingoGuardTest, outperforming best public models, WildGuard, by 4.3\%. Our analysis demonstrates that incorporating severity levels into training significantly enhances detection performance and enables the model to effectively gauge the severity of harmful responses.

Why Vision Language Models Struggle with Visual Arithmetic? Towards Enhanced Chart and Geometry Understanding

Vision Language Models (VLMs) have achieved remarkable progress in multimodal tasks, yet they often struggle with visual arithmetic, seemingly simple capabilities like object counting or length comparison, which are essential for relevant complex tasks like chart understanding and geometric reasoning. In this work, we first investigate the root causes of this deficiency through a suite of probing tasks focusing on basic visual arithmetic. Our analysis reveals that while pre-trained vision encoders typically capture sufficient information, the text decoder often fails to decode it correctly for arithmetic reasoning. To address this, we propose CogAlign, a novel post-training strategy inspired by Piaget's theory of cognitive development. CogAlign trains VLMs to recognize invariant properties under visual transformations. We demonstrate that this approach significantly improves the performance of three diverse VLMs on our proposed probing tasks. Furthermore, CogAlign enhances performance by an average of 4.6% on CHOCOLATE and 2.9% on MATH-VISION, outperforming or matching supervised fine-tuning methods while requiring only 60% less training data. These results highlight the effectiveness and generalizability of CogAlign in improving fundamental visual arithmetic capabilities and their transfer to downstream tasks.

SummExecEdit: A Factual Consistency Benchmark in Summarization with Executable Edits

Detecting factual inconsistencies in summarization is critical, yet existing benchmarks lack the necessary challenge and interpretability for robust evaluation. In this paper, we introduce SummExecEdit, a novel benchmark leveraging executable edits to assess models on their ability to both detect factual errors and provide accurate explanations. The top-performing model, Claude3-Opus, achieves a joint detection and explanation score of only 0.49 in our benchmark, with individual scores of 0.67 for detection and 0.73 for explanation. Furthermore, we identify four primary types of explanation errors, with 45.4% of errors focusing on completely unrelated parts of the summary.

CRMArena: Understanding the Capacity of LLM Agents to Perform Professional CRM Tasks in Realistic Environments

Customer Relationship Management (CRM) systems are vital for modern enterprises, providing a foundation for managing customer interactions and data. Integrating AI agents into CRM systems can automate routine processes and enhance personalized service. However, deploying and evaluating these agents is challenging due to the lack of realistic benchmarks that reflect the complexity of real-world CRM tasks. To address this issue, we introduce CRMArena, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate AI agents on realistic tasks grounded in professional work environments. Following guidance from CRM experts and industry best practices, we designed CRMArena with nine customer service tasks distributed across three personas: service agent, analyst, and manager. The benchmark includes 16 commonly used industrial objects (e.g., account, order, knowledge article, case) with high interconnectivity, along with latent variables (e.g., complaint habits, policy violations) to simulate realistic data distributions. Experimental results reveal that state-of-the-art LLM agents succeed in less than 40% of the tasks with ReAct prompting, and less than 55% even with function-calling abilities. Our findings highlight the need for enhanced agent capabilities in function-calling and rule-following to be deployed in real-world work environments. CRMArena is an open challenge to the community: systems that can reliably complete tasks showcase direct business value in a popular work environment.