Explainability for Large Language Model (LLM) agents is especially challenging in interactive, partially observable settings, where decisions depend on evolving beliefs and other agents. We present TriEx, a tri-view explainability framework that instruments sequential decision making with aligned artifacts: (i) structured first-person self-reasoning bound to an action, (ii) explicit second-person belief states about opponents updated over time, and (iii) third-person oracle audits grounded in environment-derived reference signals. This design turns explanations from free-form narratives into evidence-anchored objects that can be compared and checked across time and perspectives. Using imperfect-information strategic games as a controlled testbed, we show that TriEx enables scalable analysis of explanation faithfulness, belief dynamics, and evaluator reliability, revealing systematic mismatches between what agents say, what they believe, and what they do. Our results highlight explainability as an interaction-dependent property and motivate multi-view, evidence-grounded evaluation for LLM agents.

Tool-calling agents are increasingly deployed in real-world customer-facing workflows. Yet most studies on tool-calling agents focus on idealized settings with general, fixed, and well-specified tasks.In real-world applications, user requests are often (1) ambiguous, (2) changing over time, or (3) infeasible due to policy constraints, and training and evaluation data that cover these diverse, complex interaction patterns remain under-represented.To bridge the gap, we present Trajectory2Task a verifiable data generation pipeline for studying tool use at scale under three realistic user scenarios: ambiguous intent, changing intent, and infeasible intents.The pipeline first conducts multi-turn exploration to produce valid tool-call trajectories. It then converts these trajectories into user-facing tasks with controlled intent adaptations. This process yields verifiable task that support closed-loop evaluation and training. We benchmark several state-of-the-art LLMs on the generated complex user scenario tasks and observe frequent failures.Finally, using successful trajectories obtained from task rollouts, we fine-tune lightweight LLMs and find consistent improvements across all three conditions, along with better generalization to unseen tool-use domains, indicating stronger tool-calling ability.

Can Large Language models (LLMs) accurately simulate the next web action of a specific user? While LLMs have shown promising capabilities in generating believable human behaviors, evaluating their ability to mimic real user behaviors remains an open challenge, largely due to the lack of high-quality, publicly available datasets that capture both the observable actions and the internal reasoning of an actual human user. To address this gap, we introduce OPeRA, a novel dataset of Observation, Persona, Rationale, and Action collected from real human participants during online shopping sessions. **OPeRA is the first public dataset that comprehensively captures: user personas, browser observations, fine-grained web actions, and self-reported just-in-time rationales**. We developed both an online questionnaire and a custom browser plugin to gather this dataset with high fidelity. Using OPeRA, we establish **the first benchmark to evaluate how well current LLMs can predict a specific user’s next action** and rationale with a given persona and <observation, action, rationale> history. This dataset lays the groundwork for future research into LLM agents that aim to act as personalized digital twins for human.

The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has shown remarkable progress in complex reasoning tasks. However, a significant disparity exists between benchmark performances and real-world applications. We attribute this gap primarily to current evaluation protocols and metrics, which inadequately capture the full spectrum of LLM capabilities, especially in complex reasoning tasks where both accuracy and consistency are essential. In this paper, we introduce **G-Pass@**k, a novel evaluation metric that continuously assesses model performance across multiple sampling attempts, quantifying both the model’s performance potential and its stability. Through extensive experiments on various public and newly constructed benchmarks, we employ G-Pass@k in conjunction with state-of-the-art large language models to provide comprehensive insights into their potential capabilities and operational consistency. Our findings reveal a significant opportunity to enhance the realistic reasoning abilities of LLMs, underscoring the necessity for more robust evaluation metrics.

Aspect Sentiment Quad Prediction (ASQP) aims to predict all quads (aspect term, aspect category, opinion term, sentiment polarity) for a given review, which is the most representative and challenging task in aspect-based sentiment analysis. A key challenge in the ASQP task is the scarcity of labeled data, which limits the performance of existing methods. To tackle this issue, we propose a self-training framework with a pseudo-label scorer, wherein a scorer assesses the match between reviews and their pseudo-labels, aiming to filter out mismatches and thereby enhance the effectiveness of self-training. We highlight two critical aspects to ensure the scorer’s effectiveness and reliability: the quality of the training dataset and its model architecture. To this end, we create a human-annotated comparison dataset and train a generative model on it using ranking-based objectives. Extensive experiments on public ASQP datasets reveal that using our scorer can greatly and consistently improve the effectiveness of self-training. Moreover, we explore the possibility of replacing humans with large language models for comparison dataset annotation, and experiments demonstrate its feasibility. We will release our code and data via GitHub.