Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in generating coherent text but often struggle with grounding language and strategic dialogue. To address this gap, we focus on journalistic interviews, a domain rich in grounding communication and abundant in data. We curate a dataset of 40,000 two-person informational interviews from NPR and CNN, and reveal that LLMs are significantly less likely than human interviewers to use acknowledgements and to pivot to higher-level questions. Realizing that a fundamental deficit exists in multi-turn planning and strategic thinking, we develop a realistic simulated environment, incorporating source personas and persuasive elements, in order to facilitate the development of agents with longer-horizon rewards. Our experiments show that while source LLMs mimic human behavior in information sharing, interviewer LLMs struggle with recognizing when questions are answered and engaging persuasively, leading to suboptimal information extraction across model size and capability. These findings underscore the need for enhancing LLMs’ strategic dialogue capabilities.

Language models are aligned to the collective voice of many, resulting in generic outputs that do not align with specific users’ styles. In this work, we present Trial-Error-Explain In-Context Learning (TICL), a tuning-free method that personalizes language models for text generation tasks with fewer than 10 examples per user. TICL iteratively expands an in-context learning prompt via a trial-error-explain process, adding model-generated negative samples and explanations that provide fine-grained guidance towards a specific user’s style. TICL achieves favorable win rates on pairwise comparisons with LLM-as-a-judge up to 91.5% against the previous state-of-the-art and outperforms competitive tuning-free baselines for personalized alignment tasks of writing emails, essays and news articles. Both lexical and qualitative analyses show that the negative samples and explanations enable language models to learn stylistic context more effectively and overcome the bias towards structural and formal phrases observed in their zero-shot outputs. By front-loading inference compute to create a user-specific in-context learning prompt that does not require extra generation steps at test time, presents a novel yet simple approach for personalized alignment.

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.

Current instruction-tuned language models are exclusively trained with textual preference data and thus may not be aligned to the unique requirements of other modalities, such as speech. To better align language models with the speech domain, we explore i) prompting strategies based on radio-industry best practices and ii) preference learning using a novel speech-based preference data of 20K samples collected by annotators who listen to response pairs. Both human and automatic evaluation show that both prompting and preference learning increase the speech-suitability of popular instruction tuned LLMs. More interestingly, we show that these methods are additive; combining them achieves the best win rates in head-to-head comparison, resulting in responses that are preferred or tied to the base model in 76.2% of comparisons on average. Lastly, we share lexical, syntactical, and qualitative analyses that elicit how our studied methods differ with baselines in generating more speech-suitable responses.