Recent advancements have expanded the role of Large Language Models (LLMs) in board games from playing agents to creative co-designers. However, a critical gap remains: current systems lack the capacity to offer constructive critique grounded in the emergent user experience. Bridging this gap is fundamental for harmonizing Human-AI collaboration, as it empowers designers to refine their creations via external perspectives while steering models away from biased or unpredictable outcomes. Automating this evaluation presents two challenges: inferring the latent dynamics connecting static rules to gameplay without an explicit engine, and modeling the subjective heterogeneity of diverse player groups. To address these, we curate a comprehensive dataset of 1,727 structurally corrected rulebooks and 150K reviews selected via rigorous quality scoring and facet-aware sampling. We augment this data with Mechanics-Dynamics-Aesthetics (MDA) reasoning to explicitly bridge the causal gap between written rules and player experience. We further distill distinct player personas and introduce MeepleLM, a specialized model that internalizes persona-specific reasoning patterns to accurately simulate the subjective feedback of diverse player archetypes. Extensive experiments demonstrate that MeepleLM significantly outperforms latest commercial models (e.g., GPT-5.1, Gemini3-Pro) in community alignment and critique quality, achieving a 70% preference rate in user studies assessing practical utility. MeepleLM serves as a reliable virtual playtester that provides experience-grounded feedback, offering a practical step towards audience-aligned Human-AI collaboration.

Recent advances in AI-assisted programming have empowered agents to execute complex workflows via command-line interfaces, however, existing benchmarks are limited by short task horizons, data contamination from GitHub scraping, and a lack of fine-grained evaluation metrics, fail to rigorously evaluate the long-horizon planning and execution capabilities essential for realistic software engineering. To address these gaps, we introduce LongCLI-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate agentic capabilities across long-horizon, realistic, sequential engineering tasks. We curated 20 high-quality, long-horizon tasks from over 1,000 computer science assignments and real-world workflows, covering four engineering categories: from scratch, feature addition, bug fixing, and refactoring. LongCLI-Bench employs a dual-set testing protocol, which measures requirement fulfillment (fail(→)pass) and regression avoidance (pass(→)pass), and incorporates step-level scoring to pinpoint execution failures. Extensive experiments reveal that even state-of-the-art agents achieve pass rates below 20% in LongCLI-Bench. Step-level analysis further indicates that the majority of tasks stall at less than 30% completion, highlighting that critical failures often occur in the early stages. Although self-correction offers marginal gains, human-agent collaboration through plan injection and interactive guidance yields significantly higher improvements. These results highlight that future research must emphasize the development of synergistic human-agent workflows alongside advances in agents’ planning and execution capabilities to overcome key challenges in long-horizon task performance.

LLMs have shown strong performance on human-centric reasoning tasks. While previous evaluations have explored whether LLMs can infer intentions or detect deception, they often overlook the individualized reasoning styles that influence how people interpret and act in social contexts. Social deduction games (SDGs) provide a natural testbed for evaluating individualized reasoning styles, where different players may adopt diverse but contextually valid reasoning strategies under identical conditions. To address this, we introduce InMind, a cognitively grounded evaluation framework designed to assess whether LLMs can capture and apply personalized reasoning styles in SDGs. InMind enhances structured gameplay data with round-level strategy traces and post-game reflections, collected under both Observer and Participant modes. It supports four cognitively motivated tasks that jointly evaluate both static alignment and dynamic adaptation. As a case study, we apply InMind to the game Avalon, evaluating 11 state-of-the-art LLMs. General-purpose LLMs, even GPT-4o frequently rely on lexical cues, struggling to anchor reflections in temporal gameplay or adapt to evolving strategies. In contrast, reasoning-enhanced LLMs like DeepSeek-R1 exhibit early signs of style-sensitive reasoning. These findings reveal key limitations in current LLMs’ capacity for individualized, adaptive reasoning, and position InMind as a step toward cognitively aligned human–AI interaction.

Recent work has revealed that in-context learning for large language models exhibits compositional generalization capacity, which can be enhanced by selecting in-context demonstrations similar to test cases to provide contextual information. However, how to exhibit in-context compositional generalization (ICCG) of large vision-language models (LVLMs) is non-trival. Due to the inherent asymmetry between visual and linguistic modalities, ICCG in LVLMs faces an inevitable challenge—redundant information on the visual modality. The redundant information affects in-context learning from two aspects: (1) Similarity calculation may be dominated by redundant information, resulting in sub-optimal demonstration selection. (2) Redundant information in in-context demonstrations brings misleading contextual information to in-context learning. To alleviate these problems, we propose a demonstration selection method to achieve ICCG for LVLMs, by considering two key factors of demonstrations: content and structure, from a multimodal perspective. Specifically, we design a diversity-coverage-based matching score to select demonstrations with maximum coverage, and avoid selecting demonstrations with redundant information via their content redundancy and structural complexity. We build a GQA-ICCG dataset to simulate the ICCG setting, and conduct experiments on GQA-ICCG and the VQA v2 dataset. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our method.