SoCRATES: Towards Reliable Automated Evaluation of Proactive LLM Mediation across Domains and Socio-cognitive Variations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.05563v1
• Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2026 01:19:40 GMT
• Title: SoCRATES: Towards Reliable Automated Evaluation of Proactive LLM Mediation across Domains and Socio-cognitive Variations
• Abstract summary: SoCRATES is a benchmark for evaluating proactive LLM mediators in realistic, multi-domain testbeds.<n>It constructs scenarios from real conflicts through an agentic pipeline across eight domains.<n>It probes five socio-cognitive adaptation axes (strategic posture, party composition, history length, emotional reactivity, and cultural identity) and scores each topic only on the turns that advance it via a topic-localized evaluator.
• Score: 22.051136282030544
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Evaluating LLM mediators remains challenging, as mediation unfolds as a real-time trajectory shaped by disputants' shifting emotions, intentions, and context. Existing testbeds rely on a few expert-authored domains, vary mainly strategic posture, and score every turn against every topic, introducing off-topic noise. We introduce SoCRATES, a benchmark for evaluating proactive LLM mediators in realistic, multi-domain testbeds. It constructs scenarios from real conflicts through an agentic pipeline across eight domains, probes five socio-cognitive adaptation axes (strategic posture, party composition, history length, emotional reactivity, and cultural identity), and scores each topic only on the turns that advance it via a topic-localized evaluator. The evaluator reaches 0.82 alignment with human experts, more than doubling a per-turn baseline. Benchmarking eight frontier LLMs, we find that even the strongest mediator closes only about a third of the unmediated consensus gap under diverse and realistic testbeds, with performance varying sharply by socio-cognitive axis, highlighting that progress lies in social adaptation to diverse conditions.

Related papers

• ProMediConv: Benchmarking Proactive Conversational Agents in Legal Dispute Mediation [65.39532118490511]
  ProMediConv is a novel benchmarking framework that models mediation as a proactive, multi-stage, and party-aware dialogue process.<n>Using 972 complete real-world cases, we construct a high-fidelity mediation dataset with utterance-level annotations of strategies and BP states.<n>We also propose MAD (Mean Attribute Difference), a fine-grained metric that captures BP shifts throughout the dialogue.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-10T05:26:40Z)
• A Large-Scale Multi-Dimensional Empirical Study of LLMs for Conversation Summarization [17.601111891544885]
  We propose OmniCSEval, a unified benchmark comprising 1,800 diverse conversations across six real-world scenarios.<n>For fine-grained evaluation, we employ a bidirectional fact-checking framework that integrates key fact matching to assess completeness and conciseness.<n>We evaluate 28 LLMs across four distinct categories grouped by reasoning capability and model scale.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-14T18:57:01Z)
• Revising Context, Shifting Simulated Stance: Auditing LLM-Based Stance Simulation in Online Discussions [62.99524765341952]
  Large language models are increasingly used to simulate social media users.<n>We study counterfactual context revision as a framework for auditing LLM-based stance simulation.<n>Results reveal effective and robust stance transitions in both text-only and multimodal strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-04T17:41:54Z)
• In-Situ Behavioral Evaluation for LLM Fairness, Not Standardized-Test Scores [20.623498601506974]
  We show that the standardized-test paradigm can be structurally unreliable.<n>We develop MAC-Fairness, a multi-agent conversational framework that embeds controlled variation factors into multi-round dialogue.<n>In-situ behavioral evaluation reveals stable, model-specific behavioral signatures that could generalize across benchmarks differing in fairness targets and evaluation methodologies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T18:38:50Z)
• Interactive ASR: Towards Human-Like Interaction and Semantic Coherence Evaluation for Agentic Speech Recognition [52.63676763985825]
  We propose a semantic-aware evaluation metric to assess recognition quality beyond token-level accuracy.<n>We design an agent framework to simulate human-like multi-turn interaction, enabling iterative refinement of recognition outputs.<n>We will release the code to facilitate future research in interactive and agentic ASR.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-10T09:02:42Z)
• MERRY: Semantically Decoupled Evaluation of Multimodal Emotional and Role Consistencies of Role-Playing Agents [41.829135334587626]
  MERRY is a semantically decoupled evaluation framework for assessing Multimodal Emotional and Role consistencies of Role-playing agents.<n>We transform the traditional subjective scoring approach into a novel bidirectional-evidence-finding task.<n>We conduct extensive evaluations based on MERRY.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-24T02:53:58Z)
• DEBATE: A Large-Scale Benchmark for Role-Playing LLM Agents in Multi-Agent, Long-Form Debates [10.609797175227644]
  We introduce DEBATE, the first large-scale empirical benchmark to evaluate the authenticity of the interaction between multi-agent role-playing LLMs.<n>We systematically evaluate and identify critical discrepancies between simulated and authentic group dynamics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-29T02:21:10Z)
• Arbiters of Ambivalence: Challenges of Using LLMs in No-Consensus Tasks [52.098988739649705]
  This study examines the biases and limitations of LLMs in three roles: answer generator, judge, and debater.<n>We develop a no-consensus'' benchmark by curating examples that encompass a variety of a priori ambivalent scenarios.<n>Our results show that while LLMs can provide nuanced assessments when generating open-ended answers, they tend to take a stance on no-consensus topics when employed as judges or debaters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T01:31:54Z)
• ESC-Judge: A Framework for Comparing Emotional Support Conversational Agents [2.3020018305241337]
  We present ESC-Judge, the first end-to-end evaluation framework for large language models (LLMs)<n> ESC-Judge grounds head-to-head comparisons of emotional-support LLMs in Clara Hill's established Exploration-Insight-Action counseling model.<n>All code, prompts, synthetic roles, transcripts, and judgment scripts are released to promote transparent progress in emotionally supportive AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-18T20:04:59Z)
• TestAgent: Automatic Benchmarking and Exploratory Interaction for Evaluating LLMs in Vertical Domains [19.492393243160244]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in highly specialized vertical domains.<n>Existing evaluations for vertical domains typically rely on the labor-intensive construction of static single-turn datasets.<n>We propose TestAgent, a framework for automatic benchmarking and exploratory dynamic evaluation in vertical domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-15T11:20:42Z)
• Auto-Arena: Automating LLM Evaluations with Agent Peer Battles and Committee Discussions [77.66677127535222]
  Auto-Arena is an innovative framework that automates the entire evaluation process using LLM-powered agents. In our experiments, Auto-Arena shows a 92.14% correlation with human preferences, surpassing all previous expert-annotated benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-30T17:19:19Z)
• AgentBoard: An Analytical Evaluation Board of Multi-turn LLM Agents [74.16170899755281]
  We introduce AgentBoard, a pioneering comprehensive benchmark and accompanied open-source evaluation framework tailored to analytical evaluation of LLM agents.<n>AgentBoard offers a fine-grained progress rate metric that captures incremental advancements as well as a comprehensive evaluation toolkit.<n>This not only sheds light on the capabilities and limitations of LLM agents but also propels the interpretability of their performance to the forefront.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-24T01:51:00Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.