While LLMs excel at general tasks, they struggle in specialized domains like finance, requiring diverse skills in domain knowledge, mathematical reasoning, and multilingual processing. Merging domain-specific Continual Pre-training (CPT) "experts" offers a practical alternative to costly and unstable multi-skill training. However, unlike established Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) model-based merging, CPT model merging remains largely unexplored. We address this gap by creating financial LLMs from experts in finance, math, and Japanese. We propose a three-stage evaluation focusing on knowledge recovery, complementarity, and emergence, and assess three merging methods (Task Arithmetic, TIES, and DARE-TIES) on a comprehensive financial benchmark curated from 18 tasks across 8 established datasets. Results show that merging an expert with its base model recovers general knowledge lost during CPT, while merging experts improves performance and can yield emergent cross-domain skills. Among the methods, Task Arithmetic performs strongly but is hyperparameter-sensitive, whereas TIES is more robust. Our findings also suggest that while model similarity correlates with merging success, emergent skills depend on more complex factors. This work presents the first foundational analysis of CPT model merging, establishing a principled framework and providing clear guidance for building multi-skill LLMs from existing assets.

Human users tend to selectively ignore information that contradicts their pre-existing beliefs or opinions in their process of information seeking. These “self-imposed filter bubbles” (SFB) pose a significant challenge for cooperative argumentative dialogue systems aiming to build an unbiased opinion and a better understanding of the topic at hand. To address this issue, we develop a strategy for overcoming users’ SFB within the course of the interaction. By continuously modeling the user’s position in relation to the SFB, we are able to identify the respective arguments which maximize the probability to get outside the SFB and present them to the user. We implemented this approach in an argumentative dialogue system and evaluated in a laboratory user study with 60 participants to show its validity and applicability. The findings suggest that the strategy was successful in breaking users’ SFBs and promoting a more reflective and comprehensive discussion of the topic.

We present an approach to evaluate argument search techniques in view of their use in argumentative dialogue systems by assessing quality aspects of the retrieved arguments. To this end, we introduce a dialogue system that presents arguments by means of a virtual avatar and synthetic speech to users and allows them to rate the presented content in four different categories (Interesting, Convincing, Comprehensible, Relation). The approach is applied in a user study in order to compare two state of the art argument search engines to each other and with a system based on traditional web search. The results show a significant advantage of the two search engines over the baseline. Moreover, the two search engines show significant advantages over each other in different categories, thereby reflecting strengths and weaknesses of the different underlying techniques.