Large language models (LLMs) and LLM-based agents are increasingly deployed as assistants in planning and decision making, yet most existing systems are implicitly optimized for a single-principal interaction paradigm, in which the model is designed to satisfy the objectives of one dominant user whose instructions are treated as the sole source of authority and utility. However, as they are integrated into team workflows and organizational tools, they are increasingly required to serve multiple users simultaneously, each with distinct roles, preferences, and authority levels, leading to multi-user, multi-principal settings with unavoidable conflicts, information asymmetry, and privacy constraints. In this work, we present the first systematic study of multi-user LLM agents. We begin by formalizing multi-user interaction with LLM agents as a multi-principal decision problem, where a single agent must account for multiple users with potentially conflicting interests and associated challenges. We then introduce a unified multi-user interaction protocol and design three targeted stress-testing scenarios to evaluate current LLMs' capabilities in instruction following, privacy preservation, and coordination. Our results reveal systematic gaps: frontier LLMs frequently fail to maintain stable prioritization under conflicting user objectives, exhibit increasing privacy violations over multi-turn interactions, and suffer from efficiency bottlenecks when coordination requires iterative information gathering.

Scientific and engineering progress is fundamentally a long-horizon iterative process: proposing changes, running experiments, measuring outcomes, and continuously refining artifacts. Yet existing benchmarks for frontier models primarily evaluate either single-turn responses or short-horizon agent trajectories, failing to capture the challenges of sustained iterative improvement over extended time horizons. To address this gap, we introduce AutoLab, a new benchmark for ultra long-horizon closed-loop optimization. AutoLab consists of 36 realistic, expert-curated tasks spanning four diverse domains: system optimization, puzzle challenge, model development, and CUDA kernel optimization. Each task begins with a correct but deliberately suboptimal baseline and challenges agents to improve it within a strict wall-clock budget. Evaluating 17 state-of-the-art models reveals the dominant predictor of success is not the quality of an agent's initial attempt, but its persistence in repeatedly benchmarking, editing, and incorporating empirical feedback. While claude-opus-4.6 exhibits strong long-horizon optimization capabilities, most frontier models, including several proprietary ones, either terminate prematurely or exhaust their budgets with minimal progress. These results underscore the importance of time awareness and persistent iteration in autonomous agents. We open-source the full benchmark, evaluation harness, and task artifacts, to accelerate research toward truly capable long-horizon agents.

While agents are increasingly spending more resources, today agent cost is mostly measured only after execution. A Budget-Aware Agent (BAGEN) should treat budget as an active control signal, rather than a passive cost metric. We first systematically define budget estimation as internal budgets (from agent computation) and external budgets (from agent actions). We then formalize budget-awareness as progressive interval estimation: at each step of a plan, an agent should predict an upper and lower bound on remaining budget, and alert when completion is unlikely. Scoring with a rollout-replay protocol, we find consistent failure patterns on four environments and five frontier agents: (1) strong agents do not necessarily have strong budget-awareness, with correlation r=0.35. (2) frontier models are consistently over-optimistic, continue spending on tasks that are unlikely to succeed, instead of alerting the user early. (3) budget-aware signal is actionable and trainable. Early stop saves 28-64

Teachers, conference chairs, and public readers all judge writing from limited evidence, seeing only a finished document and not the process that produced it. Final text alone cannot reveal whether a document was produced through human typing, AI generation, or mixed human-AI collaboration. Existing process-tracking tools help, but many are tied to host-document histories, provide coarse activity records, and offer limited control over the writing environment. Humanly is a writing platform that makes the writing process itself the evidence. Users configure writing environments for personal documents or assigned tasks and draft in a workspace that records writing activity and in-platform AI assistance. Humanly can package a completed session into a sealed writing certificate with configuration-aware anomaly behavior review. It can support writing scenarios such as course assignments, peer review, and personal certification. Our user study shows that Humanly is helpful across roles, and a red-teaming study shows that the Humanly Typing Detector distinguishes human hand typing from automated typing.

The wide adoption of AI agents in complex human workflows is driving rapid growth in LLM token consumption. When agents are deployed on tasks that require a significant amount of tokens, three questions naturally arise: (1) Where do AI agents spend the tokens? (2) Which models are more token-efficient? and (3) Can agents predict their token usage before task execution? In this paper, we present the first systematic study of token consumption patterns in agentic coding tasks. We analyze trajectories from eight frontier LLMs on SWE-bench Verified and evaluate models' ability to predict their own token costs before task execution. We find that: (1) agentic tasks are uniquely expensive, consuming 1000x more tokens than code reasoning and code chat, with input tokens rather than output tokens driving the overall cost; (2) token usage is highly variable and inherently stochastic: runs on the same task can differ by up to 30x in total tokens, and higher token usage does not translate into higher accuracy; instead, accuracy often peaks at intermediate cost and saturates at higher costs; (3) models vary substantially in token efficiency: on the same tasks, Kimi-K2 and Claude-Sonnet-4.5, on average, consume over 1.5 million more tokens than GPT-5; (4) task difficulty rated by human experts only weakly aligns with actual token costs, revealing a fundamental gap between human-perceived complexity and the computational effort agents actually expend; and (5) frontier models fail to accurately predict their own token usage (with weak-to-moderate correlations, up to 0.39) and systematically underestimate real token costs. Our study offers new insights into the economics of AI agents and can inspire future research in this direction.

Current benchmarks for language models primarily evaluate execution on fully specified tasks. However, real user tasks are often ambiguous. Users arrive with incomplete, exploratory, or even inconsistent goals, requiring the assistant to first determine the intended task before carrying it out. We study this problem as task alignment: the ability to align with a user on their intended task. We introduce a general framework for converting specified tasks into underspecified interactions, formalized as a POMDP in which the model must infer a latent task from partial and evolving user intent. We validate our user simulator post hoc with a human user study. Across shopping, coding, and professional work settings, we find that while models often perform well once the task is specified, models still struggle with task alignment: current models act prematurely, interact ineffectively, and fail to resolve ambiguous requests. Models on average recover the user's intended task only 22-32

When surveys ask about sensitive topics, respondents often shift their answers toward what seems socially acceptable, underreporting behaviors such as drug use or infidelity and overreporting behaviors such as voting, exercise, or charitable giving. We show that large language models (LLMs) often exhibit the same pattern. This cannot be explained solely by safety-related refusals: although some models decline to answer the most sensitive questions, across 13 models and 15 case studies, responses were generally closer to biased human self-reports than to the best available behavioral benchmarks. Using an open weights LLM, we show that information about actual behavior remains present in the model's internal representations, even when its final answer is pulled toward the socially desirable response. Steering those activations moves responses closer to actual behavior in 13 of 15 case studies. Prompting is less effective: providing the true base rate improves accuracy somewhat, while instructing the model to ignore social norms or warning that its answers will be checked has little effect. We interpret these results as evidence of a gap between internal representation and reported output in LLMs. Social desirability bias therefore provides a useful setting for studying this mismatch. At the same time, because accuracy can be substantially improved, LLM-based social simulations should not be written off.

Existing evaluations of agents with memory typically assess and in isolation. One class of benchmarks evaluates memorization by testing recall of past conversations or text but fails to capture how memory is used to guide future decisions. Another class focuses on agents acting in single-session tasks without the need for long-term memory. However, in realistic settings, memorization and action are tightly coupled: agents acquire memory while interacting with the environment, and subsequently rely on that memory to solve future tasks. To capture this setting, We introduce MEMORYARENA, a unified evaluation gym for benchmarking agent memory in multi-session Memory-Agent-Environment loops. The benchmark consists of human-crafted agentic tasks with explicitly interdependent subtasks, where agents must learn from earlier actions and feedback by distilling experiences into memory, and subsequently use that memory to guide later actions to solve the overall task. MEMORYARENA supports evaluation across web navigation, preference-constrained planning, progressive information search, and sequential formal reasoning, and reveals that agents with near-saturated performance on existing long-context memory benchmarks like LoCoMo perform poorly in our agentic setting, exposing a gap in current evaluations for agents with memory.

Prior work on trustworthy AI emphasizes model-internal properties such as bias mitigation, adversarial robustness, and interpretability. As AI systems evolve into autonomous agents deployed in open environments and increasingly connected to payments or assets, the operational meaning of trust shifts to end-to-end outcomes: whether an agent completes tasks, follows user intent, and avoids failures that cause material or psychological harm. These risks are fundamentally product-level and cannot be eliminated by technical safeguards alone because agent behavior is inherently stochastic. To address this gap between model-level reliability and user-facing assurance, we propose a complementary framework based on risk management. Drawing inspiration from financial underwriting, we introduce the Agentic Risk Standard (ARS), a payment settlement standard for AI-mediated transactions. ARS integrates risk assessment, underwriting, and compensation into a single transaction framework that protects users when interacting with agents. Under ARS, users receive predefined and contractually enforceable compensation in cases of execution failure, misalignment, or unintended outcomes. This shifts trust from an implicit expectation about model behavior to an explicit, measurable, and enforceable product guarantee. We also present a simulation study analyzing the social benefits of applying ARS to agentic transactions. ARS's implementation can be found at https://github.com/t54-labs/AgenticRiskStandard.

Large language models offer a tempting solution to address the peer review crisis. This position paper argues that . We ground this positing in an empirical comparison of human- versus AI-generated ICLR 2026 reviews and an evaluation of the effect of automated paper rewriting on different AI reviewers. We identify two critical issues: 1) AI reviewers exhibit a of excessive agreement within and across papers that reduces perspective diversity. 2) AI review scores are trivially gameable through : prompting an LLM to rewrite a paper could significantly increase the scores from AI reviewers, demonstrating that LLM reviewers are easy to game through stylistic changes rather than scientific results. However, non-gameability and review diversity are conditions for automation. We argue that ---not general-purpose LLMs deployed without rigorous evaluation.

Language model (LM) agents are increasingly deployed to maintain codebases over extended periods, fixing streams of related defects while carrying context from one fix to the next. Yet existing software engineering (SWE) benchmarks evaluate models one bug at a time: the repository is reset, the codebase is re-read, and a single self-contained issue is graded in isolation. This setting collapses a continuous maintenance workflow into a series of independent sessions, ignoring the cumulative dependencies that make real-world bug fixing challenging. To bridge this gap, we introduce ChainSWE, the first benchmark for evaluating agents on sequential, dependent bug fixes within a shared codebase. We collect chronological chains of 304 issues across 54 Python projects, mined from six SWE-bench-family datasets. Our evaluation across a range of agents and models reveals a consistent performance drop by up to 70

Anime, originated from Japan, is one of the most influential cultural products in modern society and is especially popular among younger generations. The popularity of anime reflects important cultural evolutions in our society. Despite existing research on anime as a cultural phenomenon, we still have a limited understanding of how anime really evolves over the years. In this study, using a large-scale multimodal dataset of anime characters from an anime review site, we applied computational methods that integrate textual, visual, and production features of anime characters with online popularity traces. By combining LLM-extracted personality features with avatar features, we identify recurring personality archetypes and visual tropes with their temporal evolution over the past decades. We found that the target audience of anime has undergone a systematic shift from children to a maturing audience of teenagers and young adults over time. Character design has been undergoing moe-ification, with softer or sexualized female traits becoming increasingly prominent since the 2000s. Some personality archetypes are often visually predictable, yet audiences also tend to prefer less conventionalized characters. Finally, we reveal that visual signals play a more dominant role than personality traits in shaping audience preferences, with features such as moe-style faces and mechanical designs contributing greatly to popularity. These findings offer insights into the broader dynamics of anime's cultural and creative practices.

Conversational agents are increasingly embedded in human collaborative work, yet they remain fundamentally passive and reactive: they respond to explicit user requests rather than proactively recognizing moments when a team would benefit from timely intervention as human collaborators often do. This reactive design substantially limits the use of agents as active participants in multi-user collaboration, where disagreements, ambiguous goals, forgotten constraints, underspecified plans, discussion loops, and imbalanced participation can gradually undermine group progress. To move agents from passive assistants toward active participants in multi-user collaboration, we introduce ProACT, a breakdown-aware agent framework grounded in theories of common ground, collaborative planning, and coordination work. ProACT observes the speaker-attributed conversation history, determines whether the current turn contains a collaboration breakdown requiring intervention, decides whether the agent should stay silent or speak, and, when speaking is needed, routes the case to a targeted collaboration skill. We further introduce the first multi-user collaboration benchmark for evaluating proactive agents across project planning, product design, research collaboration, logistics, education, and resource-constrained decision making. Across 3,244 turn-level examples and five LLM backbones, ProACT consistently improves collaborative appropriateness, non-interruptiveness, conciseness, and judged intervention quality over direct chat.

Effectively engaging the public with science is vital for fostering trust and understanding in our scientific community. Yet, with an ever-growing volume of information, science communicators struggle to anticipate how audiences will perceive and interact with scientific news. In this paper, we introduce a computational framework that models public perception across twelve dimensions, such as newsworthiness, importance, and surprisingness. Using this framework, we create a large-scale science news perception dataset with 10,489 annotations from 2,101 participants from diverse US and UK populations, providing valuable insights into public responses to scientific information across domains. We further develop NLP models that predict public perception scores with a strong performance. Leveraging the dataset and model, we examine public perception of science from two perspectives: (1) Perception as an outcome: What factors affect the public perception of scientific information? (2) Perception as a predictor: Can we use the estimated perceptions to predict public engagement with science? We find that individuals' frequency of science news consumption is the driver of perception, whereas demographic factors exert minimal influence. More importantly, through a large-scale analysis and carefully designed natural experiment on Reddit, we demonstrate that the estimated public perception of scientific information has direct connections with the final engagement pattern. Posts with more positive perception scores receive significantly more comments and upvotes, which is consistent across different scientific information and for the same science, but are framed differently. Overall, this research underscores the importance of nuanced perception modeling in science communication, offering new pathways to predict public interest and engagement with scientific content.

Large-scale public deliberations generate thousands of free-form contributions that must be synthesized into representative and neutral summaries for policy use. While LLMs have been shown as a promising tool to generate summaries for large-scale deliberations, they also risk underrepresenting minority perspectives and exhibiting bias with respect to the input order, raising fairness concerns in high-stakes contexts. Studying and fixing these issues requires a comprehensive evaluation at a large scale, yet current practice often relies on LLMs as judges, which show weak alignment with human judgments. To address this, we present DeliberationBank, a large-scale human-grounded dataset with (1) opinion data spanning ten deliberation questions created by 3,000 participants and (2) summary judgment data annotated by 4,500 participants across four dimensions (representativeness, informativeness, neutrality, policy approval). Using these datasets, we train DeliberationJudge, a fine-tuned DeBERTa model that can rate deliberation summaries from individual perspectives. DeliberationJudge is more efficient and more aligned with human judgements compared to a wide range of LLM judges. With DeliberationJudge, we evaluate 18 LLMs and reveal persistent weaknesses in deliberation summarization, especially underrepresentation of minority positions. Our framework provides a scalable and reliable way to evaluate deliberation summarization, helping ensure AI systems are more representative and equitable for policymaking.

AI agents are increasingly used in consumer-facing applications to assist with tasks such as product search, negotiation, and transaction execution. In this paper, we explore a future scenario where both consumers and merchants authorize AI agents to fully automate negotiations and transactions. We aim to answer two key questions: (1) Do different LLM agents vary in their ability to secure favorable deals for users? (2) What risks arise from fully automating deal-making with AI agents in consumer markets? To address these questions, we develop an experimental framework that evaluates the performance of various LLM agents in real-world negotiation and transaction settings. Our findings reveal that AI-mediated deal-making is an inherently imbalanced game – different agents achieve significantly different outcomes for their users. Moreover, behavioral anomalies in LLMs can result in financial losses for both consumers and merchants, such as overspending or accepting unreasonable deals. These results underscore that while automation can improve efficiency, it also introduces substantial risks. Users should exercise caution when delegating business decisions to AI agents.

Human judgments are inherently subjective and are actively affected by personal traits such as gender and ethnicity. While Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used to simulate human responses across diverse contexts, their ability to account for demographic differences in subjective tasks remains uncertain. In this study, leveraging the POPQUORN dataset, we evaluate nine popular LLMs on their ability to understand demographic differences in two subjective judgment tasks: politeness and offensiveness. We find that in zero-shot settings, most models' predictions for both tasks align more closely with labels from White participants than those from Asian or Black participants, while only a minor gender bias favoring women appears in the politeness task. Furthermore, sociodemographic prompting does not consistently improve and, in some cases, worsens LLMs' ability to perceive language from specific sub-populations. These findings highlight potential demographic biases in LLMs when performing subjective judgment tasks and underscore the limitations of sociodemographic prompting as a strategy to achieve pluralistic alignment. Code and data are available at: https://github.com/Jiaxin- Pei/ LLM-as-Subjective-Judge.

People naturally vary in their annotations for subjective questions and some of this variation is thought to be due to the person's sociodemographic characteristics. LLMs have also been used to label data, but recent work has shown that models perform poorly when prompted with sociodemographic attributes, suggesting limited inherent sociodemographic knowledge. Here, we ask whether LLMs can be trained to be accurate sociodemographic models of annotator variation. Using a curated dataset of five tasks with standardized sociodemographics, we show that models do improve in sociodemographic prompting when trained but that this performance gain is largely due to models learning annotator-specific behaviour rather than sociodemographic patterns. Across all tasks, our results suggest that models learn little meaningful connection between sociodemographics and annotation, raising doubts about the current use of LLMs for simulating sociodemographic variation and behaviour.

The rapid rise of compound AI systems (a.k.a., AI agents) is reshaping the labor market, raising concerns about job displacement, diminished human agency, and overreliance on automation. Yet, we lack a systematic understanding of the evolving landscape. In this paper, we address this gap by introducing a novel auditing framework to assess which occupational tasks workers want AI agents to automate or augment, and how those desires align with the current technological capabilities. Our framework features an audio-enhanced mini-interview to capture nuanced worker desires and introduces the Human Agency Scale (HAS) as a shared language to quantify the preferred level of human involvement. Using this framework, we construct the WORKBank database, building on the U.S. Department of Labor's O*NET database, to capture preferences from 1,500 domain workers and capability assessments from AI experts across over 844 tasks spanning 104 occupations. Jointly considering the desire and technological capability divides tasks in WORKBank into four zones: Automation "Green Light" Zone, Automation "Red Light" Zone, R D Opportunity Zone, Low Priority Zone. This highlights critical mismatches and opportunities for AI agent development. Moving beyond a simple automate-or-not dichotomy, our results reveal diverse HAS profiles across occupations, reflecting heterogeneous expectations for human involvement. Moreover, our study offers early signals of how AI agent integration may reshape the core human competencies, shifting from information-focused skills to interpersonal ones. These findings underscore the importance of aligning AI agent development with human desires and preparing workers for evolving workplace dynamics.

Email is a vital conduit for human communication across businesses, organizations, and broader societal contexts. In this study, we aim to model the intents, expectations, and responsiveness in email exchanges. To this end, we release SIZZLER, a new dataset containing 1800 emails annotated with nuanced types of intents and expectations. We benchmark models ranging from feature-based logistic regression to zero-shot prompting of large language models. Leveraging the predictive model for intent, expectations, and 14 other features, we analyze 11.3M emails from GMANE to study how linguistic and social factors influence the conversational dynamics in email exchanges. Through our causal analysis, we find that the email response rates are influenced by social status, argumentation, and in certain limited contexts, the strength of social connection.