Negotiation requires dynamically balancing self-interest and cooperation within the flow of conversation to maximize one’s own utility. Yet, existing agents struggle due to bounded rationality in human data, low adaptability to counterpart behavior, and limited strategic reasoning. To address this, we introduce principle-driven negotiation agents, powered by ASTRA, a novel framework for turn-level offer optimization grounded in two core principles: opponent modeling and Tit-for-Tat reciprocity. ASTRA operates in three stages: (1) interpreting counterpart behavior, (2) optimizing counteroffers via a tool-integrated action with a linear programming (LP) solver, and (3) selecting offers based on strategy assessment and the partner’s acceptance probability. Through simulations and human evaluations, our agent effectively adapts to an opponent’s shifting stance and achieves favorable outcomes through enhanced adaptability and strategic reasoning. Beyond enhancing negotiation performance, it also serves as a powerful coaching tool, offering interpretable strategic feedback and optimal offer recommendations beyond human bounded rationality, with its potential further validated through human evaluation.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in socially complex, interaction-driven tasks, yet their ability to mirror human behavior in emotionally and strategically complex contexts remains underexplored. This study assesses the behavioral alignment of personality-prompted LLMs in adversarial dispute resolution by simulating multi-turn conflict dialogues that incorporate negotiation. Each LLM is guided by a matched Five-Factor personality profile to control for individual variation and enhance realism. We evaluate alignment across three dimensions: linguistic style, emotional expression (e.g., anger dynamics), and strategic behavior. GPT-4.1 achieves the closest alignment with humans in linguistic style and emotional dynamics, while Claude-3.7-Sonnet best reflects strategic behavior. Nonetheless, substantial alignment gaps persist. Our findings establish a benchmark for alignment between LLMs and humans in socially complex interactions, underscoring both the promise and the limitations of personality conditioning in dialogue modeling.

Non-verbal communication (NVC) is an integral part of human language, but it has been overlooked in natural language processing research. Studying NVC in general is challenging because of its high variance in interpretation among individuals and cultures, but mime—the theatrical technique of suggesting intent using only gesture, expression, and movement—is a subset of NVC with much lower human interpretation variance. As a gateway for evaluating vision-language models on their understanding of NVC, we propose Mime Identification-based Multimodal Evaluation (MIME), a gesture recognition task built upon a novel corpus of mimed activity comprising 86 unique gestures with a variety of perturbations applied to the avatar, background, and viewpoint for evaluating recognition robustness. We find that both open-weight and API-based vision-language models perform significantly worse than humans at identifying mimed gestures in MIME, motivating the need for increased research for instilling more robust understanding of human actions for VLMs.

A successful negotiation requires a range of capabilities, including comprehension of the conversation context, Theory-of-Mind (ToM) skills to infer the partner’s motives, strategic reasoning, and effective communication, making it challenging for automated systems. Despite the remarkable performance of LLMs in various NLP tasks, there is no systematic evaluation of their capabilities in negotiation. Such an evaluation is critical for advancing AI negotiation agents and negotiation research, ranging from designing dialogue systems to providing pedagogical feedback and scaling up data collection practices. This work aims to systematically analyze the multifaceted capabilities of LLMs across diverse dialogue scenarios throughout the stages of a typical negotiation interaction. Our analysis highlights GPT-4’s superior performance in many tasks while identifying specific challenges, such as making subjective assessments and generating contextually appropriate, strategically advantageous responses.

This paper presents a method for building a personalized open-domain dialogue system to address the WWH (WHAT, WHEN, and HOW) problem for natural response generation in a commercial setting, where personalized dialogue responses are heavily interleaved with casual response turns. The proposed approach involves weighted dataset blending, negative persona information augmentation methods, and the design of personalized conversation datasets to address the challenges of WWH in personalized, open-domain dialogue systems. Our work effectively balances dialogue fluency and tendency to ground, while also introducing a response-type label to improve the controllability and explainability of the grounded responses. The combination of these methods leads to more fluent conversations, as evidenced by subjective human evaluations as well as objective evaluations.