What Drives Students' Use of AI Chatbots? Technology Acceptance in Conversational AI

Conversational AI tools have been rapidly adopted by students and are becoming part of their learning routines. To understand what drives this adoption, we draw on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and examine how perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use relate to students' behavioral intention to use conversational AI that generates responses for learning tasks. We extend TAM by incorporating trust, perceived enjoyment, and subjective norms as additional factors that capture social and affective influences and uncertainty around AI outputs. Using partial least squares structural equation modeling, we find perceived usefulness remains the strongest predictor of students' intention to use conversational AI. However, perceived ease of use does not exert a significant direct effect on behavioral intention once other factors are considered, operating instead indirectly through perceived usefulness. Trust and subjective norms significantly influence perceptions of usefulness, while perceived enjoyment exerts both a direct and indirect effect on usage intentions. These findings suggest that adoption decisions for conversational AI systems are influenced less by effort-related considerations and more by confidence in system outputs, affective engagement, and social context. Future research is needed to further examine how these acceptance relationships generalize across different conversational systems and usage contexts.

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.

Helpful to a Fault: Measuring Illicit Assistance in Multi-Turn, Multilingual LLM Agents

LLM-based agents execute real-world workflows via tools and memory. These affordances enable ill-intended adversaries to also use these agents to carry out complex misuse scenarios. Existing agent misuse benchmarks largely test single-prompt instructions, leaving a gap in measuring how agents end up helping with harmful or illegal tasks over multiple turns. We introduce STING (Sequential Testing of Illicit N-step Goal execution), an automated red-teaming framework that constructs a step-by-step illicit plan grounded in a benign persona and iteratively probes a target agent with adaptive follow-ups, using judge agents to track phase completion. We further introduce an analysis framework that models multi-turn red-teaming as a time-to-first-jailbreak random variable, enabling analysis tools like discovery curves, hazard-ratio attribution by attack language, and a new metric: Restricted Mean Jailbreak Discovery. Across AgentHarm scenarios, STING yields substantially higher illicit-task completion than single-turn prompting and chat-oriented multi-turn baselines adapted to tool-using agents. In multilingual evaluations across six non-English settings, we find that attack success and illicit-task completion do not consistently increase in lower-resource languages, diverging from common chatbot findings. Overall, STING provides a practical way to evaluate and stress-test agent misuse in realistic deployment settings, where interactions are inherently multi-turn and often multilingual.

BankMathBench: A Benchmark for Numerical Reasoning in Banking Scenarios

Large language models (LLMs)-based chatbots are increasingly being adopted in the financial domain, particularly in digital banking, to handle customer inquiries about products such as deposits, savings, and loans. However, these models still exhibit low accuracy in core banking computations-including total payout estimation, comparison of products with varying interest rates, and interest calculation under early repayment conditions. Such tasks require multi-step numerical reasoning and contextual understanding of banking products, yet existing LLMs often make systematic errors-misinterpreting product types, applying conditions incorrectly, or failing basic calculations involving exponents and geometric progressions. However, such errors have rarely been captured by existing benchmarks. Mathematical datasets focus on fundamental math problems, whereas financial benchmarks primarily target financial documents, leaving everyday banking scenarios underexplored. To address this limitation, we propose BankMathBench, a domain-specific dataset that reflects realistic banking tasks. BankMathBench is organized in three levels of difficulty-basic, intermediate, and advanced-corresponding to single-product reasoning, multi-product comparison, and multi-condition scenarios, respectively. When trained on BankMathBench, open-source LLMs exhibited notable improvements in both formula generation and numerical reasoning accuracy, demonstrating the dataset's effectiveness in enhancing domain-specific reasoning. With tool-augmented fine-tuning, the models achieved average accuracy increases of 57.6%p (basic), 75.1%p (intermediate), and 62.9%p (advanced), representing significant gains over zero-shot baselines. These findings highlight BankMathBench as a reliable benchmark for evaluating and advancing LLMs' numerical reasoning in real-world banking scenarios.

Key Considerations for Domain Expert Involvement in LLM Design and Evaluation: An Ethnographic Study

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly developed for use in complex professional domains, yet little is known about how teams design and evaluate these systems in practice. This paper examines the challenges and trade-offs in LLM development through a 12-week ethnographic study of a team building a pedagogical chatbot. The researcher observed design and evaluation activities and conducted interviews with both developers and domain experts. Analysis revealed four key practices: creating workarounds for data collection, turning to augmentation when expert input was limited, co-developing evaluation criteria with experts, and adopting hybrid expert-developer-LLM evaluation strategies. These practices show how teams made strategic decisions under constraints and demonstrate the central role of domain expertise in shaping the system. Challenges included expert motivation and trust, difficulties structuring participatory design, and questions around ownership and integration of expert knowledge. We propose design opportunities for future LLM development workflows that emphasize AI literacy, transparent consent, and frameworks recognizing evolving expert roles.

SCOPE: Selective Conformal Optimized Pairwise LLM Judging

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges to replace costly human preference labels in pairwise evaluation. Despite their practicality, LLM judges remain prone to miscalibration and systematic biases. This paper proposes SCOPE (Selective Conformal Optimized Pairwise Evaluation), a framework for selective pairwise judging with finite-sample statistical guarantees. Under exchangeability, SCOPE calibrates an acceptance threshold such that the error rate among non-abstained judgments is at most a user-specified level $α$. To provide SCOPE with a bias-neutral uncertainty signal, we introduce Bidirectional Preference Entropy (BPE), which queries the judge under both response positions, aggregates the implied preference probabilities to enforce invariance to response order, and converts the aggregated probability into an entropy-based uncertainty score. Across MT-Bench, RewardBench, and Chatbot Arena, BPE improves uncertainty quality over standard confidence proxies, providing a stronger selection signal that enables SCOPE to consistently meet the target risk level while retaining good coverage across judge scales. In particular, at $α= 0.10$, \textsc{Scope} consistently satisfies the risk bound across all benchmarks and judge scales (empirical risk $\approx 0.097$ to $0.099$), while retaining substantial coverage, reaching $0.89$ on RewardBench with Qwen-14B and $0.98$ on RewardBench with Qwen-32B. Compared to naïve baselines, \textsc{Scope} accepts up to $2.4\times$ more judgments on MT-Bench with Qwen-7B under the same target risk constraint, demonstrating that BPE enables reliable and high-coverage LLM-based evaluation.

RGAlign-Rec: Ranking-Guided Alignment for Latent Query Reasoning in Recommendation Systems

Proactive intent prediction is a critical capability in modern e-commerce chatbots, enabling "zero-query" recommendations by anticipating user needs from behavioral and contextual signals. However, existing industrial systems face two fundamental challenges: (1) the semantic gap between discrete user features and the semantic intents within the chatbot's Knowledge Base, and (2) the objective misalignment between general-purpose LLM outputs and task-specific ranking utilities. To address these issues, we propose RGAlign-Rec, a closed-loop alignment framework that integrates an LLM-based semantic reasoner with a Query-Enhanced (QE) ranking model. We also introduce Ranking-Guided Alignment (RGA), a multi-stage training paradigm that utilizes downstream ranking signals as feedback to refine the LLM's latent reasoning. Extensive experiments on a large-scale industrial dataset from Shopee demonstrate that RGAlign-Rec achieves a 0.12% gain in GAUC, leading to a significant 3.52% relative reduction in error rate, and a 0.56% improvement in Recall@3. Online A/B testing further validates the cumulative effectiveness of our framework: the Query-Enhanced model (QE-Rec) initially yields a 0.98% improvement in CTR, while the subsequent Ranking-Guided Alignment stage contributes an additional 0.13% gain. These results indicate that ranking-aware alignment effectively synchronizes semantic reasoning with ranking objectives, significantly enhancing both prediction accuracy and service quality in real-world proactive recommendation systems.

SPILLage: Agentic Oversharing on the Web

LLM-powered agents are beginning to automate user's tasks across the open web, often with access to user resources such as emails and calendars. Unlike standard LLMs answering questions in a controlled ChatBot setting, web agents act "in the wild", interacting with third parties and leaving behind an action trace. Therefore, we ask the question: how do web agents handle user resources when accomplishing tasks on their behalf across live websites? In this paper, we formalize Natural Agentic Oversharing -- the unintentional disclosure of task-irrelevant user information through an agent trace of actions on the web. We introduce SPILLage, a framework that characterizes oversharing along two dimensions: channel (content vs. behavior) and directness (explicit vs. implicit). This taxonomy reveals a critical blind spot: while prior work focuses on text leakage, web agents also overshare behaviorally through clicks, scrolls, and navigation patterns that can be monitored. We benchmark 180 tasks on live e-commerce sites with ground-truth annotations separating task-relevant from task-irrelevant attributes. Across 1,080 runs spanning two agentic frameworks and three backbone LLMs, we demonstrate that oversharing is pervasive with behavioral oversharing dominates content oversharing by 5x. This effect persists -- and can even worsen -- under prompt-level mitigation. However, removing task-irrelevant information before execution improves task success by up to 17.9%, demonstrating that reducing oversharing improves task success. Our findings underscore that protecting privacy in web agents is a fundamental challenge, requiring a broader view of "output" that accounts for what agents do on the web, not just what they type. Our datasets and code are available at https://github.com/jrohsc/SPILLage.

"Not Human, Funnier": How Machine Identity Shapes Humor Perception in Online AI Stand-up Comedy

Chatbots are increasingly applied to domains previously reserved for human actors. One such domain is comedy, whereby both the general public working with ChatGPT and research-based LLM-systems have tried their hands on making humor. In formative interviews with professional comedians and video analyses of stand-up comedy in humans, we found that human performers often use their ethnic, gender, community, and demographic-based identity to enable joke-making. This suggests whether the identity of AI itself can empower AI humor generation for human audiences. We designed a machine-identity-based agent that uses its own status as AI to tell jokes in online performance format. Studies with human audiences (N=32) showed that machine-identity-based agents were seen as funnier than baseline-GPT agent. This work suggests the design of human-AI integrated systems that explicitly utilize AI as its own unique identity apart from humans.

Differentiable Modal Logic for Multi-Agent Diagnosis, Orchestration and Communication

As multi-agent AI systems evolve from simple chatbots to autonomous swarms, debugging semantic failures requires reasoning about knowledge, belief, causality, and obligation, precisely what modal logic was designed to formalize. However, traditional modal logic requires manual specification of relationship structures that are unknown or dynamic in real systems. This tutorial demonstrates differentiable modal logic (DML), implemented via Modal Logical Neural Networks (MLNNs), enabling systems to learn trust networks, causal chains, and regulatory boundaries from behavioral data alone. We present a unified neurosymbolic debugging framework through four modalities: epistemic (who to trust), temporal (when events cause failures), deontic (what actions are permitted), and doxastic (how to interpret agent confidence). Each modality is demonstrated on concrete multi-agent scenarios, from discovering deceptive alliances in diplomacy games to detecting LLM hallucinations, with complete implementations showing how logical contradictions become learnable optimization objectives. Key contributions for the neurosymbolic community: (1) interpretable learned structures where trust and causality are explicit parameters, not opaque embeddings; (2) knowledge injection via differentiable axioms that guide learning with sparse data (3) compositional multi-modal reasoning that combines epistemic, temporal, and deontic constraints; and (4) practical deployment patterns for monitoring, active control and communication of multi-agent systems. All code provided as executable Jupyter notebooks.