Current LLMs are trained to refuse potentially harmful input queries regardless of whether users actually had harmful intents, causing a tradeoff between safety and user experience. Through a study of 480 participants evaluating 3,840 query-response pairs, we examine how different refusal strategies affect user perceptions across varying motivations. Our findings reveal that response strategy largely shapes user experience, while actual user motivation has negligible impact. Partial compliance -- providing general information without actionable details -- emerges as the optimal strategy, reducing negative user perceptions by over 50% to flat-out refusals. Complementing this, we analyze response patterns of 9 state-of-the-art LLMs and evaluate how 6 reward models score different refusal strategies, demonstrating that models rarely deploy partial compliance naturally and reward models currently undervalue it. This work demonstrates that effective guardrails require focusing on crafting thoughtful refusals rather than detecting intent, offering a path toward AI safety mechanisms that ensure both safety and sustained user engagement.

Emotion-aware customer service needs in-domain conversational data, rich annotations, and predictive capabilities, but existing resources for emotion recognition are often out-of-domain, narrowly labeled, and focused on post-hoc detection. To address this, we conducted a controlled Wizard of Oz (WOZ) experiment to elicit interactions with targeted affective trajectories. The resulting corpus, EmoWOZ-CS, contains 2,148 bilingual (Dutch-English) written dialogues from 179 participants across commercial aviation, e-commerce, online travel agencies, and telecommunication scenarios. Our contributions are threefold: (1) Evaluate WOZ-based operator-steered valence trajectories as a design for emotion research; (2) Quantify human annotation performance and variation, including divergences between self-reports and third-party judgments; (3) Benchmark detection and forward-looking emotion inference in real-time support. Findings show neutral dominates participant messages; desire and gratitude are the most frequent non-neutral emotions. Agreement is moderate for multilabel emotions and valence, lower for arousal and dominance; self-reports diverge notably from third-party labels, aligning most for neutral, gratitude, and anger. Objective strategies often elicit neutrality or gratitude, while suboptimal strategies increase anger, annoyance, disappointment, desire, and confusion. Some affective strategies (cheerfulness, gratitude) foster positive reciprocity, whereas others (apology, empathy) can also leave desire, anger, or annoyance. Temporal analysis confirms successful conversation-level steering toward prescribed trajectories, most distinctly for negative targets; positive and neutral targets yield similar final valence distributions. Benchmarks highlight the difficulty of forward-looking emotion inference from prior turns, underscoring the complexity of proactive emotion-aware support.

Large language models (LLMs) typically deploy safety mechanisms to prevent harmful content generation. Most current approaches focus narrowly on risks posed by malicious actors, often framing risks as adversarial events and relying on defensive refusals. However, in real-world settings, risks also come from non-malicious users seeking help while under psychological distress (e.g., self-harm intentions). In such cases, the model's response can strongly influence the user's next actions. Simple refusals may lead them to repeat, escalate, or move to unsafe platforms, creating worse outcomes. We introduce Constructive Safety Alignment (CSA), a human-centric paradigm that protects against malicious misuse while actively guiding vulnerable users toward safe and helpful results. Implemented in Oyster-I (Oy1), CSA combines game-theoretic anticipation of user reactions, fine-grained risk boundary discovery, and interpretable reasoning control, turning safety into a trust-building process. Oy1 achieves state-of-the-art safety among open models while retaining high general capabilities. On our Constructive Benchmark, it shows strong constructive engagement, close to GPT-5, and unmatched robustness on the Strata-Sword jailbreak dataset, nearing GPT-o1 levels. By shifting from refusal-first to guidance-first safety, CSA redefines the model-user relationship, aiming for systems that are not just safe, but meaningfully helpful. We release Oy1, code, and the benchmark to support responsible, user-centered AI.

Efficiently modeling and exploiting opponents is a long-standing challenge in adversarial domains. Large Language Models (LLMs) trained on extensive textual data have recently demonstrated outstanding performance in general tasks, introducing new research directions for opponent modeling. Some studies primarily focus on directly using LLMs to generate decisions based on the elaborate prompt context that incorporates opponent descriptions, while these approaches are limited to scenarios where LLMs possess adequate domain expertise. To address that, we introduce a two-stage Strategy-Augmented Planning (SAP) framework that significantly enhances the opponent exploitation capabilities of LLM-based agents by utilizing a critical component, the Strategy Evaluation Network (SEN). Specifically, in the offline stage, we construct an explicit strategy space and subsequently collect strategy-outcome pair data for training the SEN network. During the online phase, SAP dynamically recognizes the opponent's strategies and greedily exploits them by searching best response strategy on the well-trained SEN, finally translating strategy to a course of actions by carefully designed prompts. Experimental results show that SAP exhibits robust generalization capabilities, allowing it to perform effectively not only against previously encountered opponent strategies but also against novel, unseen strategies. In the MicroRTS environment, SAP achieves a $85.35\%$ performance improvement over baseline methods and matches the competitiveness of reinforcement learning approaches against state-of-the-art (SOTA) rule-based AI. Our code is available at https://github.com/hsushuai/SAP.

CleanS2S is a framework for human-like speech-to-speech interaction that advances conversational AI through single-file implementation and proactive dialogue capabilities. Our system integrates automatic speech recognition, large language models, and text-to-speech synthesis into a unified pipeline with real-time interruption handling, achieving low transition latency through full-duplex websocket connections and non-blocking I/O. Beyond conventional chatbot paradigms, we pioneer a proactive interaction mechanism, which combines memory systems with Subjective Action Judgement module, enabling five human-like response strategies: interruption, refusal, deflection, silence, and standard response. The memory module dynamically aggregates historical, and contextual data to inform interaction decisions. This approach breaks the rigid turn-based convention by allowing system-initiated dialog control and context-aware response selection. And we propose Action Judgement SFT that assesses input streams for responses strategies. The framework's single-file implementation with atomic configurations offers researchers unprecedented transparency and extensibility for interaction agents. The code of CleanS2S is released at \https://github.com/opendilab/CleanS2S.

Trolling in online communities typically involves disruptive behaviors such as provoking anger and manipulating discussions, leading to a polarized atmosphere and emotional distress. Robust moderation is essential for mitigating these negative impacts and maintaining a healthy and constructive community atmosphere. However, effectively addressing trolls is difficult because their behaviors vary widely and require different response strategies (RSs) to counter them. This diversity makes it challenging to choose an appropriate RS for each specific situation. To address this challenge, our research investigates whether humans have preferred strategies tailored to different types of trolling behaviors. Our findings reveal a correlation between the types of trolling encountered and the preferred RS. In this paper, we introduce a methodology for generating counter-responses to trolls by recommending appropriate RSs, supported by a dataset aligning these strategies with human preferences across various troll contexts. The experimental results demonstrate that our proposed approach guides constructive discussion and reduces the negative effects of trolls, thereby enhancing the online community environment.

The proposed IncidentResponseGPT framework - a novel system that applies generative artificial intelligence (AI) to potentially enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of traffic incident response. This model allows for synthesis of region-specific incident response guidelines and generates incident response plans adapted to specific area, aiming to expedite decision-making for traffic management authorities. This approach aims to accelerate incident resolution times by suggesting various recommendations (e.g. optimal rerouting strategies, estimating resource needs) to minimize the overall impact on the urban traffic network. The system suggests specific actions, including dynamic lane closures, optimized rerouting and dispatching appropriate emergency resources. IncidentResponseGPT employs the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) to rank generated response plans based on criteria like impact minimization and resource efficiency based on their proximity to an human-proposed solution.

We explore the use of Large Language Model (LLM-based) chatbots to power recommender systems. We observe that the chatbots respond poorly when they encounter under-specified requests (e.g., they make incorrect assumptions, hedge with a long response, or refuse to answer). We conjecture that such miscalibrated response tendencies (i.e., conversational priors) can be attributed to LLM fine-tuning using annotators -- single-turn annotations may not capture multi-turn conversation utility, and the annotators' preferences may not even be representative of users interacting with a recommender system. We first analyze public LLM chat logs to conclude that query under-specification is common. Next, we study synthetic recommendation problems with configurable latent item utilities and frame them as Partially Observed Decision Processes (PODP). We find that pre-trained LLMs can be sub-optimal for PODPs and derive better policies that clarify under-specified queries when appropriate. Then, we re-calibrate LLMs by prompting them with learned control messages to approximate the improved policy. Finally, we show empirically that our lightweight learning approach effectively uses logged conversation data to re-calibrate the response strategies of LLM-based chatbots for recommendation tasks.

The rapid proliferation of large language models (LLMs) as general purpose chatbots available to the public raises hopes around expanding access to professional guidance in law, medicine, and finance, while triggering concerns about public reliance on LLMs for high-stakes circumstances. Prior research has speculated on high-level ethical considerations but lacks concrete criteria determining when and why LLM chatbots should or should not provide professional assistance. Through examining the legal domain, we contribute a structured expert analysis to uncover nuanced policy considerations around using LLMs for professional advice, using methods inspired by case-based reasoning. We convened workshops with 20 legal experts and elicited dimensions on appropriate AI assistance for sample user queries (``cases''). We categorized our expert dimensions into: (1) user attributes, (2) query characteristics, (3) AI capabilities, and (4) impacts. Beyond known issues like hallucinations, experts revealed novel legal problems, including that users' conversations with LLMs are not protected by attorney-client confidentiality or bound to professional ethics that guard against conflicted counsel or poor quality advice. This accountability deficit led participants to advocate for AI systems to help users polish their legal questions and relevant facts, rather than recommend specific actions. More generally, we highlight the potential of case-based expert deliberation as a method of responsibly translating professional integrity and domain knowledge into design requirements to inform appropriate AI behavior when generating advice in professional domains.

We study the problem of game-theoretic robot allocation where two players strategically allocate robots to compete for multiple sites of interest. Robots possess offensive or defensive capabilities to interfere and weaken their opponents to take over a competing site. This problem belongs to the conventional Colonel Blotto Game. Considering the robots' heterogeneous capabilities and environmental factors, we generalize the conventional Blotto game by incorporating heterogeneous robot types and graph constraints that capture the robot transitions between sites. Then we employ the Double Oracle Algorithm (DOA) to solve for the Nash equilibrium of the generalized Blotto game. Particularly, for cyclic-dominance-heterogeneous (CDH) robots that inhibit each other, we define a new transformation rule between any two robot types. Building on the transformation, we design a novel utility function to measure the game's outcome quantitatively. Moreover, we rigorously prove the correctness of the designed utility function. Finally, we conduct extensive simulations to demonstrate the effectiveness of DOA on computing Nash equilibrium for homogeneous, linear heterogeneous, and CDH robot allocation on graphs.