Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate persuasive capabilities that rival human-level persuasion. While these capabilities can be used for social good, they also present risks of potential misuse. Moreover, LLMs' susceptibility to persuasion raises concerns about alignment with ethical principles. To study these dynamics, we introduce Persuade Me If You Can (PMIYC), an automated framework for evaluating persuasion through multi-agent interactions. Here, Persuader agents engage in multi-turn conversations with the Persuadee agents, allowing us to measure LLMs' persuasive effectiveness and their susceptibility to persuasion. We conduct comprehensive evaluations across diverse LLMs, ensuring each model is assessed against others in both subjective and misinformation contexts. We validate the efficacy of our framework through human evaluations and show alignment with prior work. PMIYC offers a scalable alternative to human annotation for studying persuasion in LLMs. Through PMIYC, we find that Llama-3.3-70B and GPT-4o exhibit similar persuasive effectiveness, outperforming Claude 3 Haiku by 30%. However, GPT-4o demonstrates over 50% greater resistance to persuasion for misinformation compared to Llama-3.3-70B. These findings provide empirical insights into the persuasive dynamics of LLMs and contribute to the development of safer AI systems.

Large Language Models (LLMs) with API-calling capabilities enabled building effective Language Agents (LA), while also revolutionizing the conventional task-oriented dialogue (TOD) paradigm. However, current approaches face a critical dilemma: TOD systems are often trained on a limited set of target APIs, requiring new data to maintain their quality when interfacing with new services, while LAs are not trained to maintain user intent over multi-turn conversations. Because both robust multi-turn management and advanced function calling are crucial for effective conversational agents, we evaluate these skills on three popular benchmarks: MultiWOZ 2.4 (TOD), BFCL V3 (LA), and API-Bank (LA), and our analyses reveal that specialized approaches excel in one domain but underperform in the other. To bridge this chasm, we introduce CoALM (Conversational Agentic Language Model), a unified approach that integrates both conversational and agentic capabilities. We created CoALM-IT, a carefully constructed multi-task dataset that interleave multi-turn ReAct reasoning with complex API usage. Using CoALM-IT, we train three models CoALM 8B, CoALM 70B, and CoALM 405B, which outperform top domain-specific models, including GPT-4o, across all three benchmarks.This demonstrates the feasibility of a single model approach for both TOD and LA, setting a new standard for conversational agents.

Current Large Language Model (LLM) agents demonstrate strong reasoning and tool use capabilities, but often lack self-awareness, failing to balance these approaches effectively. This imbalance leads to Tool Overuse, where models unnecessarily rely on external tools for tasks solvable with parametric knowledge, increasing computational overhead. Inspired by human metacognition, we introduce SMART (Strategic Model-Aware Reasoning with Tools), a paradigm that enhances an agent's self-awareness to optimize task handling and reduce tool overuse. To support this paradigm, we introduce SMART-ER, a dataset spanning three domains, where reasoning alternates between parametric knowledge and tool-dependent steps, with each step enriched by rationales explaining when tools are necessary. Through supervised training, we develop SMARTAgent, a family of models that dynamically balance parametric knowledge and tool use. Evaluations show that SMARTAgent reduces tool use by 24% while improving performance by over 37%, enabling 7B-scale models to match its 70B counterpart and GPT-4o. Additionally, SMARTAgent generalizes to out-of-distribution test data like GSM8K and MINTQA, maintaining accuracy with just one-fifth the tool calls. These highlight the potential of strategic tool use to enhance reasoning, mitigate overuse, and bridge the gap between model size and performance, advancing intelligent and resource-efficient agent designs.

Recent LLMs have enabled significant advancements for conversational agents. However, they are also well-known to hallucinate, i.e., they often produce responses that seem plausible but are not factually correct. On the other hand, users tend to over-rely on LLM-based AI agents; they accept the AI's suggestion even when it is wrong. Adding good friction, such as explanations or getting user confirmations, has been proposed as a mitigation in AI-supported decision-making systems. In this paper, we propose an accountability model for LLM-based task-oriented dialogue agents to address user overreliance via friction turns in cases of model uncertainty and errors associated with dialogue state tracking (DST). The accountability model is an augmented LLM with an additional accountability head, which functions as a binary classifier to predict the slots of the dialogue states. We perform our experiments with three backbone LLMs (Llama, Mistral, Gemma) on two established task-oriented datasets (MultiWOZ and Snips). Our empirical findings demonstrate that this approach not only enables reliable estimation of AI agent errors but also guides the LLM decoder in generating more accurate actions. We observe around 3% absolute improvement in joint goal accuracy by incorporating accountability heads in modern LLMs for the MultiWOZ dataset. We also show that this method enables the agent to self-correct its actions, further boosting its performance by 3%. Finally, we discuss the application of accountability modeling to prevent user overreliance by introducing friction.

Traditionally, offline datasets have been used to evaluate task-oriented dialogue (TOD) models. These datasets lack context awareness, making them suboptimal benchmarks for conversational systems. In contrast, user-agents, which are context-aware, can simulate the variability and unpredictability of human conversations, making them better alternatives as evaluators. Prior research has utilized large language models (LLMs) to develop user-agents. Our work builds upon this by using LLMs to create user-agents for the evaluation of TOD systems. This involves prompting an LLM, using in-context examples as guidance, and tracking the user-goal state. Our evaluation of diversity and task completion metrics for the user-agents shows improved performance with the use of better prompts. Additionally, we propose methodologies for the automatic evaluation of TOD models within this dynamic framework.

Large language model (LLM)-based agents have been increasingly used to interact with external environments (e.g., games, APIs, etc.) and solve tasks. However, current frameworks do not enable these agents to work with users and interact with them to align on the details of their tasks and reach user-defined goals; instead, in ambiguous situations, these agents may make decisions based on assumptions. This work introduces ReSpAct (Reason, Speak, and Act), a novel framework that synergistically combines the essential skills for building task-oriented "conversational" agents. ReSpAct addresses this need for agents, expanding on the ReAct approach. The ReSpAct framework enables agents to interpret user instructions, reason about complex tasks, execute appropriate actions, and engage in dynamic dialogue to seek guidance, clarify ambiguities, understand user preferences, resolve problems, and use the intermediate feedback and responses of users to update their plans. We evaluated ReSpAct in environments supporting user interaction, such as task-oriented dialogue (MultiWOZ) and interactive decision-making (AlfWorld, WebShop). ReSpAct is flexible enough to incorporate dynamic user feedback and addresses prevalent issues like error propagation and agents getting stuck in reasoning loops. This results in more interpretable, human-like task-solving trajectories than relying solely on reasoning traces. In two interactive decision-making benchmarks, AlfWorld and WebShop, ReSpAct outperform the strong reasoning-only method ReAct by an absolute success rate of 6% and 4%, respectively. In the task-oriented dialogue benchmark MultiWOZ, ReSpAct improved Inform and Success scores by 5.5% and 3%, respectively.

Embodied agents designed to assist users with tasks must engage in natural language interactions, interpret instructions, execute actions, and communicate effectively to resolve issues. However, collecting large-scale, diverse datasets of situated human-robot dialogues to train and evaluate such agents is expensive, labor-intensive, and time-consuming. To address this challenge, we propose building a large language model (LLM)-based user agent that can simulate user behavior during interactions with an embodied agent in a virtual environment. Given a user goal (e.g., make breakfast), at each time step, the user agent may observe" the robot actions or speak" to either intervene with the robot or answer questions. Such a user agent assists in improving the scalability and efficiency of embodied dialogues dataset generation and is critical for enhancing and evaluating the robot's interaction and task completion ability, as well as for research in reinforcement learning using AI feedback. We evaluate our user agent's ability to generate human-like behaviors by comparing its simulated dialogues with the TEACh dataset. We perform three experiments: zero-shot prompting to predict dialogue acts, few-shot prompting, and fine-tuning on the TEACh training subset. Results show the LLM-based user agent achieves an F-measure of 42% with zero-shot prompting and 43.4% with few-shot prompting in mimicking human speaking behavior. Through fine-tuning, performance in deciding when to speak remained stable, while deciding what to say improved from 51.1% to 62.5%. These findings showcase the feasibility of the proposed approach for assessing and enhancing the effectiveness of robot task completion through natural language communication.

Robots operating in human spaces must be able to engage in natural language interaction with people, both understanding and executing instructions, and using conversation to resolve ambiguity and recover from mistakes. To study this, we introduce TEACh, a dataset of over 3,000 human--human, interactive dialogues to complete household tasks in simulation. A Commander with access to oracle information about a task communicates in natural language with a Follower. The Follower navigates through and interacts with the environment to complete tasks varying in complexity from "Make Coffee" to "Prepare Breakfast", asking questions and getting additional information from the Commander. We propose three benchmarks using TEACh to study embodied intelligence challenges, and we evaluate initial models' abilities in dialogue understanding, language grounding, and task execution.

Embodied instruction following is a challenging problem requiring an agent to infer a sequence of primitive actions to achieve a goal environment state from complex language and visual inputs. Action Learning From Realistic Environments and Directives (ALFRED) is a recently proposed benchmark for this problem consisting of step-by-step natural language instructions to achieve subgoals which compose to an ultimate high-level goal. Key challenges for this task include localizing target locations and navigating to them through visual inputs, and grounding language instructions to visual appearance of objects. To address these challenges, in this study, we augment the agent's field of view during navigation subgoals with multiple viewing angles, and train the agent to predict its relative spatial relation to the target location at each timestep. We also improve language grounding by introducing a pre-trained object detection module to the model pipeline. Empirical studies show that our approach exceeds the baseline model performance.

The predominant approach to visual question answering (VQA) relies on encoding the image and question with a "black-box" neural encoder and decoding a single token as the answer like "yes" or "no". Despite this approach's strong quantitative results, it struggles to come up with intuitive, human-readable forms of justification for the prediction process. To address this insufficiency, we reformulate VQA as a full answer generation task, which requires the model to justify its predictions in natural language. We propose LRTA [Look, Read, Think, Answer], a transparent neural-symbolic reasoning framework for visual question answering that solves the problem step-by-step like humans and provides human-readable form of justification at each step. Specifically, LRTA learns to first convert an image into a scene graph and parse a question into multiple reasoning instructions. It then executes the reasoning instructions one at a time by traversing the scene graph using a recurrent neural-symbolic execution module. Finally, it generates a full answer to the given question with natural language justifications. Our experiments on GQA dataset show that LRTA outperforms the state-of-the-art model by a large margin (43.1% v.s. 28.0%) on the full answer generation task. We also create a perturbed GQA test set by removing linguistic cues (attributes and relations) in the questions for analyzing whether a model is having a smart guess with superficial data correlations. We show that LRTA makes a step towards truly understanding the question while the state-of-the-art model tends to learn superficial correlations from the training data.