Game-theoretic interactions between agents with large language models (LLMs) have revealed many emergent capabilities, yet the linguistic diversity of these interactions has not been sufficiently quantified. In this paper, we present the Conversational Robustness Evaluation Score: CORE, a metric to quantify the effectiveness of language use within multi-agent systems across different game-theoretic interactions. CORE integrates measures of cluster entropy, lexical repetition, and semantic similarity, providing a direct lens of dialog quality. We apply CORE to pairwise LLM dialogs across competitive, cooperative, and neutral settings, further grounding our analysis in Zipf’s and Heaps’ Laws to characterize word frequency distributions and vocabulary growth. Our findings show that cooperative settings exhibit both steeper Zipf distributions and higher Heap exponents, indicating more repetition alongside greater vocabulary expansion. In contrast, competitive interactions display lower Zipf and Heaps exponents, reflecting less repetition and more constrained vocabularies. These results provide new insights into how social incentives influence language adaptation, and highlight CORE as a robust diagnostic for measuring linguistic robustness in multi-agent LLM systems.

Post-cutoff performance decay has been widely interpreted as a temporal signal for benchmark contamination.We critically examine this belief and demonstrate that this temporal signal is highly sensitive to how benchmark questions are constructed.Specifically, we show that LLM-generated questions can produce remarkably different temporal patterns compared to fill-in-the-blank questions directly retrieved from the very same materials.We validated this finding on previous benchmarks that reported clear post-cutoff performance decay such as LiveCodeBench and further showed simple LLM transformation could effectively remove this temporal pattern when evaluated on the same models.We also provide a mechanistic understanding of our observation using influence function analysis.Overall, this work offers a new perspective on the sensitivity of temporal contamination signal and highlights the need for more robust contamination detection methods for reliable AI evaluation.

Expert writing feedback from experienced researchers is critical for early-career scholars to improve their manuscripts, yet high-quality feedback often remains scarce because reviewing research papers is labor-intensive. Emerging AI-powered writing assistants largely focus on grammar fixes or simulating peer review with final scores, yet they fall short of providing concrete, actionable suggestions that help students improve their papers during drafting. We present PaperMentor, a human-centered writing assistant system that delivers actionable suggestions as Overleaf-native inline comments while leaving the actual writing entirely to human authors. PaperMentor integrates an expert skill library carefully curated from established researchers’ writing advice with 12 specialized agents covering different aspects of paper writing, such as formatting compliance, phrasing accuracy, and terminology consistency. In a user study (n=14), 90.6% of the generated comments were rated actionable and 67.5% were rated valid, significantly outperforming a GPT-5.2 baseline without the skill library. We release PaperMentor as open source for public use.