arXiv subjects

Philippe Laban

Publications and source records attributed to Philippe Laban.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

KnowSim: Evaluating Information Calibration in LLM Assistants with User Simulators that Learn

To effectively collaborate with users on knowledge-intensive tasks, Large Language Models (LLMs) must perform information calibration: matching content to a user's evolving understanding and cognitive capacity. Yet user simulators used to evaluate and train LLMs do not explicitly model user knowledge so they neither produce realistic interactions across knowledge levels nor reflect how interactions unfold as that knowledge evolves. To close this gap, we introduce KNOWSIM, an evaluation framework built around a user simulator that maintains explicit knowledge states, represented as a graph of Information Units with prerequisite relationships, that evolve under update rules grounded in learning theory. KNOWSIM computes three metrics (Knowledge Gain, Delivery Calibration, Cognitive Overload) directly from the knowledge state trajectory, reflecting key mechanistic aspects of information calibration. We validate KNOWSIM against 705 human-AI sessions across two domains, stratified by knowledge level: its rankings align significantly with human judgments (73-74% sign agreement), outperforming three baseline simulators. Applied to 9 LLMs, KNOWSIM reveals that the best model shifts by user knowledge level, revealing aptitude-treatment interactions invisible to standard evaluation.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

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.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Measuring and Mitigating the Distributional Gap Between Real and Simulated User Behaviors

As user simulators are increasingly used for interactive training and evaluation of AI assistants, it is essential that they represent the diverse behaviors of real users. While existing works train user simulators to generate human-like responses, whether they capture the broad and heterogeneous distribution of real user behaviors remains an open question. In this work, we introduce a method to measure the distributional gap between real and simulated user behaviors, validated through a human study and ablations. Given a dataset of real and simulated conversations, our method extracts representations of user behavior from each conversation, quantizes them into discrete distributions via clustering, then computes divergence metrics. We provide the first systematic evaluation of 24 LLM-based user simulators on coding and writing tasks, and reveal a large distributional gap from real users that varies across model families, scales, and behavioral facets. Pairwise comparisons show that most simulators behave similarly, while a few stand apart. Combining behaviorally complementary simulators brings the resulting distribution closer to real users compared to either simulator on its own. Finally, a TF-IDF analysis of the clusters surfaces interpretable patterns of behaviors that simulators capture, miss, and hallucinate.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

LLMs Corrupt Your Documents When You Delegate

Large Language Models (LLMs) are poised to disrupt knowledge work, with the emergence of delegated work as a new interaction paradigm (e.g., vibe coding). Delegation requires trust - the expectation that the LLM will faithfully execute the task without introducing errors into documents. We introduce DELEGATE-52 to study the readiness of AI systems in delegated workflows. DELEGATE-52 simulates long delegated workflows that require in-depth document editing across 52 professional domains, such as coding, crystallography, and music notation. Our large-scale experiment with 19 LLMs reveals that current models degrade documents during delegation: even frontier models (Gemini 3.1 Pro, Claude 4.6 Opus, GPT 5.4) corrupt an average of 25% of document content by the end of long workflows, with other models failing more severely. Additional experiments reveal that agentic tool use does not improve performance on DELEGATE-52, and that degradation severity is exacerbated by document size, length of interaction, or presence of distractor files. Our analysis shows that current LLMs are unreliable delegates: they introduce sparse but severe errors that silently corrupt documents, compounding over long interaction.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Flipping the Dialogue: Training and Evaluating User Language Models

Conversations with LMs involve two participants: a human user leading the conversation, and an LM assistant responding to the user's request. To satisfy this specific role, LMs are post-trained to be helpful assistants -- optimized to produce exhaustive and well-structured responses, free of ambiguity and grammar errors. User utterances, on the other hand, are rarely perfected, with each user phrasing requests in unique ways, sometimes putting in partial effort at each turn and refining on the fly. To evaluate LM performance in realistic settings, prior work simulated users in multi-turn conversations, often by prompting an LM originally trained to be a helpful assistant to act as a user. However, we show that assistant LMs make for poor user simulators, with the surprising finding that better assistants yield worse simulators. Instead, we introduce purpose-built User Language Models (User LMs) - models post-trained to simulate human users in multi-turn conversations. Through various evaluations, we show how User LMs align better with human behavior and achieve better simulation robustness than existing simulation methods. When leveraging User LMs to simulate coding and math conversations, the performance of a strong assistant (GPT-4o) drops from 74.6% to 57.4%, confirming that more realistic simulation environments lead to assistant struggles as they fail to cope with the nuances of users in multi-turn setups.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Attribution Gradients: Incrementally Unfolding Citations for Critical Examination of Attributed AI Answers

AI answer engines are a relatively new kind of information search tool: rather than returning a ranked list of documents, they generate an answer to a search question with inline citations to sources. But reading the cited sources is costly, and citation links themselves offer little guidance about what evidence they contain. We present attribution gradients, a technique to boost the informativeness of citations by consolidating scent and information prey in place. Its first feature is bringing evidence amounts, supporting/contradictory excerpts, links to source, contextual explanation into one place. Its second feature is the ability to unravel second-degree citations in place. In a lab study we demonstrate usage of the full gradient in a critical reading task and its support for deep engagement that increased the depth of what readers took away from the sources versus a standard citation and document QA design.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

DeepTRACE: Auditing Deep Research AI Systems for Tracking Reliability Across Citations and Evidence

Generative search engines and deep research LLM agents promise trustworthy, source-grounded synthesis, yet users regularly encounter overconfidence, weak sourcing, and confusing citation practices. We introduce DeepTRACE, a novel sociotechnically grounded audit framework that turns prior community-identified failure cases into eight measurable dimensions spanning answer text, sources, and citations. DeepTRACE uses statement-level analysis (decomposition, confidence scoring) and builds citation and factual-support matrices to audit how systems reason with and attribute evidence end-to-end. Using automated extraction pipelines for popular public models (e.g., GPT-4.5/5, You.com, Perplexity, Copilot/Bing, Gemini) and an LLM-judge with validated agreement to human raters, we evaluate both web-search engines and deep-research configurations. Our findings show that generative search engines and deep research agents frequently produce one-sided, highly confident responses on debate queries and include large fractions of statements unsupported by their own listed sources. Deep-research configurations reduce overconfidence and can attain high citation thoroughness, but they remain highly one-sided on debate queries and still exhibit large fractions of unsupported statements, with citation accuracy ranging from 40--80% across systems.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

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.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

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*.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

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.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

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.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

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 most of the 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.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

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.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

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.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

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 pipeline and 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. We conduct detailed evaluations to assess the current state of models in this field and find that more than half of the 20+ LLMs in our study struggle with over 30% of the SummExecEdit benchmark. Additionally, we identify four primary types of explanation errors, with 45.4% of them involving a focus on completely unrelated parts of the summary.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

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.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Do RAG Systems Cover What Matters? Evaluating and Optimizing Responses with Sub-Question Coverage

Evaluating retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems remains challenging, particularly for open-ended questions that lack definitive answers and require coverage of multiple sub-topics. In this paper, we introduce a novel evaluation framework based on sub-question coverage, which measures how well a RAG system addresses different facets of a question. We propose decomposing questions into sub-questions and classifying them into three types -- core, background, and follow-up -- to reflect their roles and importance. Using this categorization, we introduce a fine-grained evaluation protocol that provides insights into the retrieval and generation characteristics of RAG systems, including three commercial generative answer engines: You.com, Perplexity AI, and Bing Chat. Interestingly, we find that while all answer engines cover core sub-questions more often than background or follow-up ones, they still miss around 50% of core sub-questions, revealing clear opportunities for improvement. Further, sub-question coverage metrics prove effective for ranking responses, achieving 82% accuracy compared to human preference annotations. Lastly, we also demonstrate that leveraging core sub-questions enhances both retrieval and answer generation in a RAG system, resulting in a 74% win rate over the baseline that lacks sub-questions.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Search Engines in an AI Era: The False Promise of Factual and Verifiable Source-Cited Responses

Large Language Model (LLM)-based applications are graduating from research prototypes to products serving millions of users, influencing how people write and consume information. A prominent example is the appearance of Answer Engines: LLM-based generative search engines supplanting traditional search engines. Answer engines not only retrieve relevant sources to a user query but synthesize answer summaries that cite the sources. To understand these systems' limitations, we first conducted a study with 21 participants, evaluating interactions with answer vs. traditional search engines and identifying 16 answer engine limitations. From these insights, we propose 16 answer engine design recommendations, linked to 8 metrics. An automated evaluation implementing our metrics on three popular engines (You.com, Perplexity.ai, BingChat) quantifies common limitations (e.g., frequent hallucination, inaccurate citation) and unique features (e.g., variation in answer confidence), with results mirroring user study insights. We release our Answer Engine Evaluation benchmark (AEE) to facilitate transparent evaluation of LLM-based applications.

cs.IR↗