The "alignment tax" of post-training is typically framed as a drop in task accuracy. We show it also involves a severe loss of calibration, making models overconfident, less reliable, and model outputs less diverse. We demonstrate that this trade-off can be navigated effectively via a simple post-hoc intervention: interpolating between a model’s weights before and after alignment. Crucially, this is not a strict trade-off. We find that the process consistently reveals Pareto-optimal interpolations—models that improve accuracy beyond both parents while substantially recovering the calibration lost during alignment. Our work demonstrates that simple model merging provides a computationally efficient method for mitigating the full scope of the alignment tax, yielding models that are more capable and more reliable.

While confidence estimation is a promising direction for mitigating hallucinations in Large Language Models (LLMs), current research overwhelmingly focuses on single-turn settings. The dynamics of model confidence in multi-turn conversations, where context accumulates and ambiguity is progressively resolved, remain largely unexplored. This work presents the first systematic study of confidence estimation in multi-turn interactions, establishing a formal evaluation framework grounded in two key desiderata: per-turn calibration and monotonicity of confidence as more information becomes available. To facilitate this, we introduce novel metrics, including a length-normalized Expected Calibration Error (InfoECE), and a new "Hinter-Guesser" paradigm for generating controlled evaluation datasets. Our experiments reveal that widely-used confidence techniques struggle with calibration and monotonicity in multi-turn dialogues. In contrast, a novel logit-based probe we introduce, P(Sufficient), proves comparatively more effective, robustly tracking evidence accumulation and distinguishing it from conversational filler. Our work provides a foundational methodology for developing more reliable and trustworthy conversational agents.

Reasoning-tuned LLMs utilizing long Chain-of-Thought (CoT) excel at single-answer tasks, yet their ability to model Human Label Variation—which requires capturing probabilistic ambiguity rather than resolving it—remains underexplored. We investigate this through systematic disentanglement experiments on distribution-based tasks, employing Cross-CoT experiments to isolate the effect of reasoning text from intrinsic model priors. We observe a distinct "decoupled mechanism": while CoT improves distributional alignment, final accuracy is dictated by CoT content (99% variance contribution), whereas distributional ranking is governed by model priors (over 80%). Step-wise analysis further shows that while CoT’s influence on accuracy grows monotonically during the reasoning process, distributional structure is largely determined by LLM’s intrinsic priors. These findings suggest that long CoT serves as a decisive LLM decision-maker for the top option but fails to function as a granular distribution calibrator for ambiguous tasks.

Understanding how discussion dynamics shape team creativity has been limited by the difficulty of measuring process at scale. We introduce Trace, a corpus of 309 group discussions from 103 teams (460 participants) across six creative problem-solving tasks. The dataset follows an input-process-output framework, integrating team composition (demographics, personalities), full discussion transcripts, and creativity outcomes. Using sentence embeddings and factor analysis, we identify four interpretable discussion dimensions: Coherence, Exploration, Convergence, and Participation. Analysis reveals a depth-breadth trade-off: coherent idea development inversely relates to semantic exploration. Larger teams explore more broadly but converge less effectively while team diversity shapes participation patterns more than discussion content. Novelty and usefulness in the creativity outcomes follow distinct pathways: Exploration and Convergence predict novelty, whereas Coherence predicts usefulness. These findings ground our understanding of how teams talk their way to creative solutions and provide guidance for designing multiagent systems.

Large Language Model (LLM) agents deployed for real-world tasks face a fundamental dilemma: user requests are underspecified, yet agents must decide whether to act on incomplete information or interrupt users for clarification. Existing approaches either rely on brittle confidence thresholds that require task-specific tuning, or fail to account for the varying stakes of different decisions. We introduce a decision-theoretic framework that resolves this trade-off through the Value of Information (VoI), enabling agents to dynamically weigh the expected utility gain from asking questions against the cognitive cost imposed on users. Our inference-time method requires no hyperparameter tuning and adapts seamlessly across contexts—from casual games to medical diagnosis. Experiments across four diverse domains (20 Questions, medical diagnosis, flight booking, and e-commerce) show that VoI consistently matches or exceeds the best manually-tuned baselines, achieving up to 1.36 utility points higher in high-cost settings. This work provides a parameter-free framework for adaptive agent communication that explicitly balances task risk, query ambiguity, and user effort.