User modeling, which aims to capture users' characteristics or interests, heavily relies on task-specific labeled data and suffers from the data sparsity issue. Several recent studies tackled this problem by pre-training the user model on massive user behavior sequences with a contrastive learning task. Generally, these methods assume different views of the same behavior sequence constructed via data augmentation are semantically consistent, i.e., reflecting similar characteristics or interests of the user, and thus maximizing their agreement in the feature space. However, due to the diverse interests and heavy noise in user behaviors, existing augmentation methods tend to lose certain characteristics of the user or introduce noisy behaviors. Thus, forcing the user model to directly maximize the similarity between the augmented views may result in a negative transfer.

The contextual linear bandit is an important online learning problem where given arm features, a learning agent selects an arm at each round to maximize the cumulative rewards in the long run. A line of works, called the clustering of bandits (CB), utilize the collaborative effect over user preferences and have shown significant improvements over classic linear bandit algorithms. However, existing CB algorithms require well-specified linear user models and can fail when this critical assumption does not hold. Whether robust CB algorithms can be designed for more practical scenarios with misspecified user models remains an open problem. In this paper, we are the first to present the important problem of clustering of bandits with misspecified user models (CBMUM), where the expected rewards in user models can be perturbed away from perfect linear models.

Despite the explosive growth of AI and the technologies built upon it, predicting and inferring the sub-optimal behavior of users or human collaborators remains a critical challenge. In many cases, such behaviors are not a result of irrationality, but rather a rational decision made given inherent cognitive bounds and biased beliefs about the world. In this paper, we formally introduce a class of computational-rational (CR) user models for cognitively-bounded agents acting optimally under biased beliefs. The key novelty lies in explicitly modeling how a bounded memory process leads to a dynamically inconsistent and biased belief state and, consequently, sub-optimal sequential decision-making. We address the challenge of identifying the latent user-specific bound and inferring biased belief states from passive observations on the fly. We argue that for our formalized CR model family with an explicit and parameterized cognitive process, this challenge is tractable. To support our claim, we propose an efficient online inference method based on nested particle filtering that simultaneously tracks the user's latent belief state and estimates the unknown cognitive bound from a stream of observed actions. We validate our approach in a representative navigation task using memory decay as an example of a cognitive bound. With simulations, we show that (1) our CR model generates intuitively plausible behaviors corresponding to different levels of memory capacity, and (2) our inference method accurately and efficiently recovers the ground-truth cognitive bounds from limited observations ($\le 100$ steps). We further demonstrate how this approach provides a principled foundation for developing adaptive AI assistants, enabling adaptive assistance that accounts for the user's memory limitations.

As Large Language Models are rapidly deployed across diverse applications from healthcare to financial advice, safety evaluation struggles to keep pace. Current benchmarks focus on single-turn interactions with generic policies, failing to capture the conversational dynamics of real-world usage and the application-specific harms that emerge in context. Such potential oversights can lead to harms that go unnoticed in standard safety benchmarks and other current evaluation methodologies. To address these needs for robust AI safety evaluation, we introduce SAGE (Safety AI Generic Evaluation), an automated modular framework designed for customized and dynamic harm evaluations. SAGE employs prompted adversarial agents with diverse personalities based on the Big Five model, enabling system-aware multi-turn conversations that adapt to target applications and harm policies. We evaluate seven state-of-the-art LLMs across three applications and harm policies. Multi-turn experiments show that harm increases with conversation length, model behavior varies significantly when exposed to different user personalities and scenarios, and some models minimize harm via high refusal rates that reduce usefulness. We also demonstrate policy sensitivity within a harm category where tightening a child-focused sexual policy substantially increases measured defects across applications. These results motivate adaptive, policy-aware, and context-specific testing for safer real-world deployment.

Each picture represents a news article clicked by the user. Dash borders indicate behaviors replaced by the augmentation method. The data augmentation proportion is set as 0.6. We also find that the behavior sequence augmented by masking well preserves the user's The pseudo-codes of the pre-training procedure with our AdaptSSR are shown in Algorithm 1. Randomly select two augmentation operators f and g from A. With independently sampled dropout masks. With independently sampled dropout masks.

User modeling, which aims to capture users' characteristics or interests, heavily

We present an agentic framework, Thinker, which achieves state of art performance in challenging reasoning tasks for realistic customer service scenarios that involve complex business logic and human interactions via long horizons. On the $\tau$-bench retail dataset, Thinker achieves 82.6\% success rate with GPT-4o (version 2024-06-01) (baseline: 68.3\%), and 81.9\% success rate with Llama-3.1 405B (baseline: 49.6\%), without any fine-tuning. Thinker effectively closes the gap in reasoning capabilities between the base models by introducing proper structure. The key features of the Thinker framework are: (1) State-Machine Augmented Generation (SMAG), which represents business logic as state machines and the LLM uses state machines as tools. (2) Delegation of tasks from the main reasoning loop to LLM-powered tools. (3) Adaptive context management. Our prompting-only solution achieves signficant gains, while still maintaining a standard agentic architecture with a ReAct style reasoning loop. The key is to innovate on the tool interface design, as exemplified by SMAG and the LLM-powered tools.

This paper analyzes the safety of Large Language Models (LLMs) in interactions with children below age of 18 years. Despite the transformative applications of LLMs in various aspects of children's lives such as education and therapy, there remains a significant gap in understanding and mitigating potential content harms specific to this demographic. The study acknowledges the diverse nature of children often overlooked by standard safety evaluations and proposes a comprehensive approach to evaluating LLM safety specifically for children. We list down potential risks that children may encounter when using LLM powered applications. Additionally we develop Child User Models that reflect the varied personalities and interests of children informed by literature in child care and psychology. These user models aim to bridge the existing gap in child safety literature across various fields. We utilize Child User Models to evaluate the safety of six state of the art LLMs. Our observations reveal significant safety gaps in LLMs particularly in categories harmful to children but not adults