Agentic LLM frameworks promise autonomous behavior via task decomposition, tool use, and iterative planning, but most deployed systems remain brittle. They lack runtime introspection, cannot diagnose their own failure modes, and do not improve over time without human intervention. In practice, many agent stacks degrade into decorated chains of LLM calls with no structural mechanisms for reliability. We present VIGIL (Verifiable Inspection and Guarded Iterative Learning), a reflective runtime that supervises a sibling agent and performs autonomous maintenance rather than task execution. VIGIL ingests behavioral logs, appraises each event into a structured emotional representation, maintains a persistent EmoBank with decay and contextual policies, and derives an RBT diagnosis that sorts recent behavior into strengths, opportunities, and failures. From this analysis, VIGIL generates both guarded prompt updates that preserve core identity semantics and read only code proposals produced by a strategy engine that operates on log evidence and code hotspots. VIGIL functions as a state gated pipeline. Illegal transitions produce explicit errors rather than allowing the LLM to improvise. In a reminder latency case study, VIGIL identified elevated lag, proposed prompt and code repairs, and when its own diagnostic tool failed due to a schema conflict, it surfaced the internal error, produced a fallback diagnosis, and emitted a repair plan. This demonstrates meta level self repair in a deployed agent runtime.

The convincingness of an argument does not only depend on its structure (logos), the person who makes the argument (ethos), but also on the emotion that it causes in the recipient (pathos). While the overall intensity and categorical values of emotions in arguments have received considerable attention in the research community, we argue that the emotion an argument evokes in a recipient is subjective. It depends on the recipient's goals, standards, prior knowledge, and stance. Appraisal theories lend themselves as a link between the subjective cognitive assessment of events and emotions. They have been used in event-centric emotion analysis, but their suitability for assessing argument convincingness remains unexplored. In this paper, we evaluate whether appraisal theories are suitable for emotion analysis in arguments by considering subjective cognitive evaluations of the importance and impact of an argument on its receiver. Based on the annotations in the recently published ContArgA corpus, we perform zero-shot prompting experiments to evaluate the importance of gold-annotated and predicted emotions and appraisals for the assessment of the subjective convincingness labels. We find that, while categorical emotion information does improve convincingness prediction, the improvement is more pronounced with appraisals. This work presents the first systematic comparison between emotion models for convincingness prediction, demonstrating the advantage of appraisals, providing insights for theoretical and practical applications in computational argumentation.

Emotions that somebody develops based on an argument do not only depend on the argument itself - they are also influenced by a subjective evaluation of the argument's potential impact on the self. For instance, an argument to ban plastic bottles might cause fear of losing a job for a bottle industry worker, which lowers the convincingness - presumably independent of its content. While binary emotionality of arguments has been studied, such cognitive appraisal models have only been proposed in other subtasks of emotion analysis, but not in the context of arguments and their convincingness. To fill this research gap, we propose the Contextualized Argument Appraisal Framework to model the interplay between the sender, receiver, and argument. We adapt established appraisal models from psychology to argument mining, including argument pleasantness, familiarity, response urgency, and expected effort, as well as convincingness variables. To evaluate the framework and pave the way for computational modeling, we develop a novel role-playing-based annotation setup, mimicking real-world exposure to arguments. Participants disclose their emotion, explain the main cause, the argument appraisal, and the perceived convincingness. To consider the subjective nature of such annotations, we also collect demographic data and personality traits of both the participants and ask them to disclose the same variables for their perception of the argument sender. The analysis of the resulting ContArgA corpus of 4000 annotations reveals that convincingness is positively correlated with positive emotions (e.g., trust) and negatively correlated with negative emotions (e.g., anger). The appraisal variables particularly point to the importance of the annotator's familiarity with the argument.

Discovering the antecedents of individuals' influence in collaborative environments is an important, practical, and challenging problem. In this paper, we study interpersonal influence in small groups of individuals who collectively execute a sequence of intellective tasks. We observe that along an issue sequence with feedback, individuals with higher expertise and social confidence are accorded higher interpersonal influence. We also observe that low-performing individuals tend to underestimate their high-performing teammate's expertise. Based on these observations, we introduce three hypotheses and present empirical and theoretical support for their validity. We report empirical evidence on longstanding theories of transactive memory systems, social comparison, and confidence heuristics on the origins of social influence. We propose a cognitive dynamical model inspired by these theories to describe the process by which individuals adjust interpersonal influences over time. We demonstrate the model's accuracy in predicting individuals' influence and provide analytical results on its asymptotic behavior for the case with identically performing individuals. Lastly, we propose a novel approach using deep neural networks on a pre-trained text embedding model for predicting the influence of individuals. Using message contents, message times, and individual correctness collected during tasks, we are able to accurately predict individuals' self-reported influence over time. Extensive experiments verify the accuracy of the proposed models compared to baselines such as structural balance and reflected appraisal model. While the neural networks model is the most accurate, the dynamical model is the most interpretable for influence prediction.

Stress, arising from the dynamic interaction between external stressors, individual appraisals, and physiological or psychological responses, significantly impacts health yet is often underreported and inconsistently documented, typically captured as unstructured free-text in electronic health records. Ambient AI technologies offer promise in reducing documentation burden, but predominantly generate unstructured narratives, limiting downstream clinical utility. This study aimed to develop an ontology for mental stress and evaluate the feasibility of using a Large Language Model (LLM) to extract ontology-guided stress-related information from narrative text. The Mental Stress Ontology (MeSO) was developed by integrating theoretical models like the Transactional Model of Stress with concepts from 11 validated stress assessment tools. MeSO's structure and content were refined using Ontology Pitfall Scanner! and expert validation. Using MeSO, six categories of stress-related information--stressor, stress response, coping strategy, duration, onset, and temporal profile--were extracted from 35 Reddit posts using Claude Sonnet 4. Human reviewers evaluated accuracy and ontology coverage. The final ontology included 181 concepts across eight top-level classes. Of 220 extractable stress-related items, the LLM correctly identified 172 (78.2%), misclassified 27 (12.3%), and missed 21 (9.5%). All correctly extracted items were accurately mapped to MeSO, although 24 relevant concepts were not yet represented in the ontology. This study demonstrates the feasibility of using an ontology-guided LLM for structured extraction of stress-related information, offering potential to enhance the consistency and utility of stress documentation in ambient AI systems. Future work should involve clinical dialogue data and comparison across LLMs.

Affective Computing has been established as a crucial field of inquiry to advance the holistic development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems. Foundation models -- especially Large Language Models (LLMs) -- have been evaluated, trained, or instruction-tuned in several past works, to become better predictors or generators of emotion. Most of these studies, however, approach emotion-related tasks in a supervised manner, assessing or training the capabilities of LLMs using discrete emotion labels associated with stimuli (e.g., text, images, video, audio). Evaluation studies, in particular, have often been limited to standard and superficial emotion-related tasks, such as the recognition of evoked or expressed emotions. In this paper, we move beyond surface-level emotion tasks to investigate how LLMs reason about emotions through cognitive dimensions. Drawing from cognitive appraisal theory, we examine whether LLMs produce coherent and plausible cognitive reasoning when reasoning about emotionally charged stimuli. We introduce a large-scale benchmark on Cognitive Reasoning for Emotions - CoRE - to evaluate internal cognitive structures implicitly used by LLMs for emotional reasoning. Through a plethora of evaluation experiments and analysis, we seek to answer: (a) Are models more likely to implicitly rely on specific cognitive appraisal dimensions?, (b) What cognitive dimensions are important for characterizing specific emotions?, and, (c) Can the internal representations of different emotion categories in LLMs be interpreted through cognitive appraisal dimensions? Our results and analyses reveal diverse reasoning patterns across different LLMs. Our benchmark and code will be made publicly available.

The notion of machine companions has long been embedded in social-technological imaginaries. Recent advances in AI have moved those media musings into believable sociality manifested in interfaces, robotic bodies, and devices. Those machines are often referred to colloquially as "companions" yet there is little careful engagement of machine companionship (MC) as a formal concept or measured variable. This PRISMA-guided scoping review systematically samples, surveys, and synthesizes current scholarly works on MC (N = 71; 2017-2025), to that end. Works varied widely in considerations of MC according to guiding theories, dimensions of a-priori specified properties (subjectively positive, sustained over time, co-active, autotelic), and in measured concepts (with more than 50 distinct measured variables). WE ultimately offer a literature-guided definition of MC as an autotelic, coordinated connection between human and machine that unfolds over time and is subjectively positive.

The novelist Ewan Morrison was alarmed, though amused, to discover he had written a book called Nine Inches Pleases a Lady. Intrigued by the limits of generative artificial intelligence (AI), he had asked ChatGPT to give him the names of the 12 novels he had written. "I've only written nine," he says. "Always eager to please, it decided to invent three." The "nine inches" from the fake title it hallucinated was stolen from a filthy Robert Burns poem.

Datasets used for emotion recognition tasks typically contain overt cues that can be used in predicting the emotions expressed in a text. However, one challenge is that texts sometimes contain covert contextual cues that are rich in affective semantics, which warrant higher-order reasoning abilities to infer emotional states, not simply the emotions conveyed. This study advances beyond surface-level perceptual features to investigate how large language models (LLMs) reason about others' emotional states using contextual information, within a Theory-of-Mind (ToM) framework. Grounded in Cognitive Appraisal Theory, we curate a specialized ToM evaluation dataset1 to assess both forward reasoning - from context to emotion- and backward reasoning - from emotion to inferred context. We showed that LLMs can reason to a certain extent, although they are poor at associating situational outcomes and appraisals with specific emotions. Our work highlights the need for psychological theories in the training and evaluation of LLMs in the context of emotion reasoning.

Evaluating the performance of a lecturer has been essential for enhancing teaching quality, improving student learning outcomes, and strengthening the institution's reputation. The absence of such a system brings about lecturer performance evaluation which was neither comprehensive nor holistic. This system was designed using a web-based platform, created a secure database, and by using a custom dataset, captured some performance metrics which included student evaluation scores, Research Publications, Years of Experience, and Administrative Duties. Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) algorithm was utilized due to its ability to process complex data patterns and generates accurate predictions in a lecturer's performance based on historical data. This research focused on designing multiple performance metrics beyond the standard ones, incorporating student participation, and integrating analytical tools to deliver a comprehensive and holistic evaluation of lecturers' performance and was developed using Object-Oriented Analysis and Design (OOAD) methodology. Lecturers' performance is evaluated by the model, and the evaluation accuracy is about 91% compared with actual performance. Finally, by evaluating the performance of the MLP model, it is concluded that MLP enhanced lecturer performance evaluation by providing accurate predictions, reducing bias, and supporting data-driven decisions, ultimately improving the fairness and efficiency of the evaluation process. The MLP model's performance was evaluated using Mean Squared Error (MSE) and Mean Absolute Error (MAE), achieved a test loss (MSE) of 256.99 and a MAE of 13.76, and reflected a high level of prediction accuracy. The model also demonstrated an estimated accuracy rate of approximately 96%, validated its effectiveness in predicting lecturer performance.