Sushrita Rakshit

Jonathan Ivey, Shivani Kumar, Jiayu Liu et al.

Studying and building datasets for dialogue tasks is both expensive and time-consuming due to the need to recruit, train, and collect data from study participants. In response, much recent work has sought to use large language models (LLMs) to simulate both human-human and human-LLM interactions, as they have been shown to generate convincingly human-like text in many settings. However, to what extent do LLM-based simulations \textit{actually} reflect human dialogues? In this work, we answer this question by generating a large-scale dataset of 100,000 paired LLM-LLM and human-LLM dialogues from the WildChat dataset and quantifying how well the LLM simulations align with their human counterparts. Overall, we find relatively low alignment between simulations and human interactions, demonstrating a systematic divergence along the multiple textual properties, including style and content. Further, in comparisons of English, Chinese, and Russian dialogues, we find that models perform similarly. Our results suggest that LLMs generally perform better when the human themself writes in a way that is more similar to the LLM's own style.

Sushrita Rakshit, Hanwen Zhang, Hua Shen

Large language models (LLMs) are often evaluated based on their stated values, yet these do not reliably translate into their actions, a discrepancy termed "value-action gap." In this work, we argue that this gap persists even under explicit reasoning, revealing a deeper failure mode we call "Pseudo-Deliberation": the appearance of principled reasoning without corresponding behavioral alignment. To study this systematically, we introduce VALDI, a framework for measuring alignment between stated values and generated dialogue. VALDI includes 4,941 human-centered scenarios across five domains, three tasks that elicit value articulation, reasoning, and action, and five metrics for quantifying value adherence. Across both proprietary and open-source LLMs, we observe consistent misalignment between expressed values and downstream dialogues. To investigate intervention strategies, we propose VIVALDI, a multi-agent value auditor that intervenes at different stages of generation.

James Hale, Sushrita Rakshit, Kushal Chawla et al.

We present KODIS, a dyadic dispute resolution corpus containing thousands of dialogues from over 75 countries. Motivated by a theoretical model of culture and conflict, participants engage in a typical customer service dispute designed by experts to evoke strong emotions and conflict. The corpus contains a rich set of dispositional, process, and outcome measures. The initial analysis supports theories of how anger expressions lead to escalatory spirals and highlights cultural differences in emotional expression. We make this corpus and data collection framework available to the community.

Sushrita Rakshit, James Hale, Kushal Chawla et al.

In conflict, people use emotional expressions to shape their counterparts' thoughts, feelings, and actions. This paper explores whether automatic text emotion recognition offers insight into this influence in the context of dispute resolution. Prior work has shown the promise of such methods in negotiations; however, disputes evoke stronger emotions and different social processes. We use a large corpus of buyer-seller dispute dialogues to investigate how emotional expressions shape subjective and objective outcomes. We further demonstrate that large-language models yield considerably greater explanatory power than previous methods for emotion intensity annotation and better match the decisions of human annotators. Findings support existing theoretical models for how emotional expressions contribute to conflict escalation and resolution and suggest that agent-based systems could be useful in managing disputes by recognizing and potentially mitigating emotional escalation.

Hua Shen, Tiffany Knearem, Reshmi Ghosh et al.

Recent advances in general-purpose AI underscore the urgent need to align AI systems with human goals and values. Yet, the lack of a clear, shared understanding of what constitutes "alignment" limits meaningful progress and cross-disciplinary collaboration. In this position paper, we argue that the research community should explicitly define and critically reflect on "alignment" to account for the bidirectional and dynamic relationship between humans and AI. Through a systematic review of over 400 papers spanning HCI, NLP, ML, and more, we examine how alignment is currently defined and operationalized. Building on this analysis, we introduce the Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment framework, which not only incorporates traditional efforts to align AI with human values but also introduces the critical, underexplored dimension of aligning humans with AI -- supporting cognitive, behavioral, and societal adaptation to rapidly advancing AI technologies. Our findings reveal significant gaps in current literature, especially in long-term interaction design, human value modeling, and mutual understanding. We conclude with three central challenges and actionable recommendations to guide future research toward more nuanced, reciprocal, and human-AI alignment approaches.