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.

Can We Trust Item Response Theory for AI Evaluation?

AI benchmarks increasingly leverage item-level statistical models, particularly item response theory (IRT), to estimate model capabilities, rank systems, select informative examples, and diagnose benchmark quality. However, AI benchmark data often departs from the data regime of human testing, for which standard IRT estimation tools were originally developed: benchmarks typically involve fewer evaluated models, far more items, and capability distributions that may be skewed, clustered, or multimodal. We examine how these regime mismatches challenge the reliability of IRT modeling for AI evaluation. Using item parameters and capability distributions derived from six widely used LLM benchmarks, we simulate response matrices under three common IRT models and compare four estimation tools used in recent benchmark studies: marginal maximum likelihood, Markov chain Monte Carlo, variational inference, and a neural pseudo-Siamese estimator. Across 18,000 simulation conditions, we systematically evaluate computational feasibility, scalability, and the reliability of IRT inferences about model rankings, predicted performance, and item characteristics. Results show that classical estimators can become infeasible in large benchmark settings, whereas scalable estimators can produce unreliable item-level and ranking inferences with small or nonnormally distributed model sets. This study identifies when latent trait models reliably support or risk distorting AI benchmarking claims, and what sample sizes and diagnostics are needed for trustworthy use.

AI-Mediated Negotiation: Design Reflections and Lessons

Conversational AI promises a new kind of preparation for high-stakes workplace negotiations -- personalized, interactive, and capable of simulating realistic resistance. That promise is intuitive. We built Trucey, a theory-driven coaching system, to test it. The system encoded four assumptions: that articulation supports clarification, that personalization builds strategic competence, that chunked delivery reduces cognitive load, and that structured scaffolding removes metacognitive burden. A pre-registered experiment (N=267) and interviews (N=15) complicated each of them. Notably, the static handbook we included as a passive control outperformed both AI conditions on empowerment and usability. We reflect on why: each assumption encoded a specific model of how preparation unfolds, and the findings revealed that conversational AI imposes a linear execution model on a task that is fundamentally recursive. We identify an unexamined scope condition on established HAI design guidelines and close with a sequencing principle -- map before path, path before simulation -- for future AI coaching design.

On Defining Erasure Harms for NLP

The deployment of NLP systems has raised concerns about harms they might produce, including representational harms. Recent literature has begun to conceptualize and measure one such harm, the harm of erasure. Nevertheless, the field lacks a clear and cohesive conceptual foundation for identifying and measuring erasure. Existing conceptualizations of erasure are often broad -- making it difficult to identify what is needed to establish and measure erasure -- or else specific to particular settings -- facilitating measurement for those settings but potentially challenging to adapt to other settings. To address this gap, we develop and propose a structured definition of erasure that clarifies what components are necessary for establishing whether erasure has occurred, which practitioners need to explicitly articulate and operationalize in order to measure erasure.

How to Interpret Agent Behavior

Autonomous agents such as Claude Code and Codex now operate for hours or even days. Understanding their runtime behavior has become critical for downstream tasks such as diagnosing inefficiencies, fixing bugs, and ensuring better oversight. A primary way to gain this understanding is analyzing the reasoning trajectories and execution traces these agents generate. Yet such data remains in unstructured natural-language form, making it difficult for humans to interpret at scale. We introduce ACT*ONOMY (a combination of Action and Taxonomy), a taxonomy for describing and analyzing agent behavior at runtime. ACT*ONOMY has two components: (1) the taxonomy itself, developed through Grounded Theory and structured as a three-level hierarchy of 10 actions, 46 subactions, and 120 leaf categories; and (2) an open repository that hosts the living taxonomy, provides an automated analysis pipeline that applies it to agent trajectories analysis, and defines an extension protocol for customization and growth. Our experiments show that ACTONOMY can compare behavioral profiles across agents and characterize a single agent's behavior across diverse trajectories, surfacing patterns indicative of failure modes. By providing a shared vocabulary, ACT*ONOMY helps researchers, agent designers, and end users interpret agent behavior more consistently, enabling better oversight and control.

LoViF 2026 The First Challenge on Holistic Quality Assessment for 4D World Model (PhyScore)

This paper reports on the LoViF 2026 PhyScore challenge, a competition on holistic quality assessment of world-model-generated videos across both 2D and 4D generation settings. The challenge is motivated by a central gap in current evaluation practice: perceptual quality alone is insufficient to judge whether generated dynamics are physically plausible, temporally coherent, and consistent with input conditions. Participants are required to build a metric that jointly predicts four dimensions, i.e., Video Quality, Physical Realism, Condition-Video Alignment, and Temporal Consistency. Depart from that, participants also need to localize physical anomaly timestamps for fine-grained diagnosis. The benchmark dataset contains 1,554 videos generated by seven representative world generative models, organized into three tracks (text-2D, image-to-4D, and video-to-4D) and spanning 26 categories. These categories explicitly cover physics-relevant scenarios, including dynamics, optics, and thermodynamics, together with diverse real-world and creative content. To ensure label reliability, scores and anomaly timestamps are produced through trained human annotation with an additional automated quality-control pass. Evaluation is based on both score prediction and anomaly localization, with a composite protocol that combines TimeStamp_IOU and SRCC/PLCC. This report summarizes the challenge design and provides method-level insights from submitted solutions.

Synthetic Users, Real Differences: an Evaluation Framework for User Simulation in Multi-Turn Conversations

There is growing interest in exploring user simulation as an alternative to gathering and scoring real user-chatbot interactions for AI chatbot evaluation. For this purpose, it is important to ensure the realism of the simulation, i.e., the extent to which simulated dialogues reflect real dialogues users have with chatbots. Most existing methods evaluating simulation realism produce coarse quality signal and remain solely at the level of individual dialogues. To support more rigorous evaluation in this area, we propose realsim, an evaluation framework that enables practitioners to take a distributional view of real vs. simulated dialogues along 8 dimensions, covering attributes related to the communicative functions of the interaction, user states, and the surface form of user messages. We then instantiate the framework with a curated dataset of 1K multi-turn task-focused real user-chatbot dialogues that cover 16 domains of chatbot applications. Overall, we find that simulated users tend to struggle at capturing communication frictions that real users introduce to interactions, which could make evaluations based on such simulations overly optimistic. We also observe variability in performance across different domains, which may indicate a need for domain-specific user simulators.

What Makes a Good Response? An Empirical Analysis of Quality in Qualitative Interviews

Qualitative interviews provide essential insights into human experiences when they elicit high-quality responses. While qualitative and NLP researchers have proposed various measures of interview quality, these measures lack validation that high-scoring responses actually contribute to the study's goals. In this work, we identify, implement, and evaluate 10 proposed measures of interview response quality to determine which are actually predictive of a response's contribution to the study findings. To conduct our analysis, we introduce the Qualitative Interview Corpus, a newly constructed dataset of 343 interview transcripts with 16,940 participant responses from 14 real research projects. We find that direct relevance to a key research question is the strongest predictor of response quality. We additionally find that two measures commonly used to evaluate NLP interview systems, clarity and surprisal-based informativeness, are not predictive of response quality. Our work provides analytic insights and grounded, scalable metrics to inform the design of qualitative studies and the evaluation of automated interview systems.

Not My Truce: Personality Differences in AI-Mediated Workplace Negotiation

AI-driven conversational coaching is increasingly used to support workplace negotiation, yet prior work assumes uniform effectiveness across users. We challenge this assumption by examining how individual differences, particularly personality traits, moderate coaching outcomes. We conducted a between-subjects experiment (N=267) comparing theory-driven AI (Trucey), general-purpose AI (Control-AI), and a traditional negotiation handbook (Control-NoAI). Participants were clustered into three profiles -- resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled -- based on the Big-Five personality traits and ARC typology. Resilient workers achieved broad psychological gains primarily from the handbook, overcontrolled workers showed outcome-specific improvements with theory-driven AI, and undercontrolled workers exhibited minimal effects despite engaging with the frameworks. These patterns suggest personality as a predictor of readiness beyond stage-based tailoring: vulnerable users benefit from targeted rather than comprehensive interventions. The study advances understanding of personality-determined intervention prerequisites and highlights design implications for adaptive AI coaching systems that align support intensity with individual readiness, rather than assuming universal effectiveness.

Does AI Coaching Prepare us for Workplace Negotiations?

Workplace negotiations are undermined by psychological barriers, which can even derail well-prepared tactics. AI offers personalized and always -- available negotiation coaching, yet its effectiveness for negotiation preparedness remains unclear. We built Trucey, a prototype AI coach grounded in Brett's negotiation model. We conducted a between-subjects experiment (N=267), comparing Trucey, ChatGPT, and a traditional negotiation Handbook, followed by in-depth interviews (N=15). While Trucey showed the strongest reductions in fear relative to both comparison conditions, the Handbook outperformed both AIs in usability and psychological empowerment. Interviews revealed that the Handbook's comprehensive, reviewable content was crucial for participants' confidence and preparedness. In contrast, although participants valued AI's rehearsal capability, its guidance often felt verbose and fragmented -- delivered in bits and pieces that required additional effort -- leaving them uncertain or overwhelmed. These findings challenge assumptions of AI superiority and motivate hybrid designs that integrate structured, theory-driven content with targeted rehearsal, clear boundaries, and adaptive scaffolds to address psychological barriers and support negotiation preparedness.