While LLMs increasingly assist individual users, there is a critical need for agents that can proactively manage complex, multi-party collaboration. However, the scarcity of systematic evaluation methods for these group dynamics limits the development of AI capable of effectively supporting teams Here, we present ProMediate, the first testbed for evaluating proactive AI mediator agents in complex, multi-topic, multi-party negotiations. ProMediate consists of two core components: (i) a simulation environment based on realistic negotiation cases with a plug-and-play proactive AI mediator, capable of flexibly deciding when and how to intervene; and (ii) a socio-cognitive evaluation framework with a new suite of metrics to measure consensus changes, intervention latency, mediator effectiveness, and intelligence. These components establish a systematic framework for assessing the capability of proactive AI agents in multi-party settings. Our results show that a socially intelligent mediator agent outperforms a generic baseline, via faster, better-targeted interventions. In the ProMediate-Hard setting, our social mediator increases consensus change by 3.6 percentage points compared to the generic baseline (10.65% vs 7.01%) while being 77% faster in response (15.98s vs. 3.71s). In conclusion, ProMediate provides a rigorous, theory-grounded testbed to advance the development of proactive, socially intelligent agents.

As large language models (LLMs) are used in complex writing workflows, users engage in multi-turn interactions to steer generations to better fit their needs. Rather than passively accepting output, users actively refine, explore, and co-construct text. We conduct a large scale analysis of this collaborative behavior for users engaged in writing tasks in the wild with two popular AI assistants, Bing Copilot and WildChat. Our analysis goes beyond simple task classification or satisfaction estimation common in prior work and instead characterizes how users interact with LLMs through the course of a session. We identify prototypical behaviors in how users interact with LLMs in prompts following their original request. We refer to these as Prototypical Human AI Collaboration Behaviors (PATHs) and find that a small group of PATHs explain a majority of the variation seen in user-LLM interaction. These PATHs span users revising intents, exploring texts, posing questions, adjusting style or injecting new content. Next, we find statistically significant correlations between specific writing intents and PATHs, revealing how users’ intents shape their collaboration behaviors. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings on LLM alignment.

Powerful large language models have facilitated the development of writing assistants that promise to significantly improve the quality and efficiency of composition and communication. However, a barrier to effective assistance is the lack of personalization in LLM outputs to the author’s communication style, specialized knowledge, and values. In this paper, we address this challenge by proposing Pearl, a LLM writing assistant personalized with a retriever that is trained to be generation-calibrated for personalization. Generation calibration ensures that our retriever selects historic user authored documents to augment an LLM prompt such that they are likely to help an LLM generation better adhere to a users’ preferences. We propose two key novelties for training such a retriever: (1) A training data selection method that identifies user requests likely to benefit from personalization and documents that provide that benefit; and (2) A scale-calibrating KL-divergence objective that ensures that our retriever scores remain proportional to the downstream generation quality from using the document for personalized generation. In a series of holistic evaluations, we demonstrate the effectiveness of Pearl in generating long-form texts on multiple social media datasets. Finally, we demonstrate how a generation-calibrated retriever can double as a performance predictor – detecting low quality retrieval, and improving potentially under-performing outputs via revision with LLMs.