Evaluating large language models (LLMs) requires selecting benchmarks that fit the intended use case. However, the rapid growth of benchmarks has made discovery and comparison difficult, because practitioners must assemble information across papers, repositories, and dataset cards with heterogeneous metadata, inconsistent terminology, and uneven documentation. Prior work improves individual benchmark documentation and quality assessment, but does not provide a uniform way to compare benchmarks during discovery. We survey practitioners, analyze multi-source benchmark metadata, and identify the fields needed for effective benchmark discovery. We introduce BenchNavigator, a prototype that organizes heterogeneous metadata into a coherent, provenance-preserving interface aligned with practitioner priorities. Our results show that benchmark metadata can be presented in a comparable form without imposing new reporting burdens on benchmark producers. We frame this contribution as discovery infrastructure, not as a method for scoring benchmark quality or replacing contextual evaluation.

Modern language models, while sophisticated, exhibit some inherent shortcomings, particularly in conversational settings. We claim that many of the observed shortcomings can be attributed to violation of one or more conversational principles. By drawing upon extensive research from both the social science and AI communities, we propose a set of maxims – quantity, quality, relevance, manner, benevolence, and transparency – for describing effective human-AI conversation. We first justify the applicability of the first four maxims (from Grice) in the context of human-AI interactions. We then argue that two new maxims, benevolence (concerning the generation of, and engagement with, harmful content) and transparency (concerning recognition of one’s knowledge boundaries, operational constraints, and intents), are necessary for addressing behavior unique to modern human-AI interactions. We evaluate the degree to which various language models are able to understand these maxims and find that models possess an internal prioritization of principles that can significantly impact accurate interpretability of the maxims.

Virtual agents are becoming a prominent channel of interaction in customer service. Not all customer interactions are smooth, however, and some can become almost comically bad. In such instances, a human agent might need to step in and salvage the conversation. Detecting bad conversations is important since disappointing customer service may threaten customer loyalty and impact revenue. In this paper, we outline an approach to detecting such egregious conversations, using behavioral cues from the user, patterns in agent responses, and user-agent interaction. Using logs of two commercial systems, we show that using these features improves the detection F1-score by around 20% over using textual features alone. In addition, we show that those features are common across two quite different domains and, arguably, universal.