Haoming Tang

Xiangzhe Yuan, Zhenhao Zhang, Haoming Tang et al.

As LLMs gain persuasive capabilities through extended dialogues, they create new opportunities for studying adversarial conversational behavior in extended interaction settings that traditional single-turn safety evaluations fail to capture. We systematically study these interactional dynamics using a controlled LLM-to-LLM simulation framework for automated red-teaming across bilingual social engineering scenarios. Evaluating eight state-of-the-art models in English and Chinese, we analyze dialogue-level outcomes, annotate attacker and defender strategy families, and model interaction dynamics between them. Results show that multi-turn adversarial dialogues follow recurrent escalation patterns, while defensive responses frequently rely on verification, delay, and channel control. We further find statistically significant cross-model and cross-lingual differences in outcome distributions, and transition analysis reveals systematic structural variation in how defender strategies respond to attacker tactics across languages. These findings highlight the importance of studying interactional structure in multi-turn adversarial dialogue settings and demonstrate how controlled LLM-to-LLM simulations can support mechanistic analysis of adversarial conversational dynamics.

Yutong Bian, Xianhao Lin, Yupeng Xie et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) and code agents in software development are rapidly evolving from generating isolated code snippets to producing full-fledged software applications with graphical interfaces, interactive logic, and dynamic behaviors. However, current benchmarks fall short in evaluating such production-ready software, as they often rely on static checks or binary pass/fail scripts, failing to capture the interactive behaviors and runtime dynamics that define real-world usability - qualities that only emerge when an application is actively used. This is the blind spot of current evaluation: you don't know if an app works until you click through it, interact with it, and observe how it responds. To bridge this gap, we introduce RealDevWorld, a novel evaluation framework for automated end-to-end assessment of LLMs' ability to generate production-ready repositories from scratch. It features two key components: (1) RealDevBench, a diverse collection of 194 open-ended software engineering tasks across multiple domains, incorporating multimodal elements to reflect real-world complexity; and (2) AppEvalPilot, a new agent-as-a-judge evaluation system that simulates realistic, GUI-based user interactions to automatically and holistically assess software functional correctness, visual fidelity, and runtime behavior. The framework delivers fine-grained, task-specific diagnostic feedback, supporting nuanced evaluation beyond simple success/failure judgments. Empirical results show that RealDevWorld delivers effective, automatic, and human-aligned evaluations, achieving an accuracy of 0.92 and a correlation of 0.85 with expert human assessments, while significantly reducing the reliance on manual review. This enables scalable, human-aligned assessment of production-level software generated by LLMs. Our code is available on GitHub.