Daily Papers

Can generative agents be trusted in multimodal environments? Despite advances in large language and vision-language models that enable agents to act autonomously and pursue goals in rich settings, their ability to reason about safety, coherence, and trust across modalities remains limited. We introduce a reproducible simulation framework for evaluating agents along three dimensions: (1) safety improvement over time, including iterative plan revisions in text-visual scenarios; (2) detection of unsafe activities across multiple categories of social situations; and (3) social dynamics, measured as interaction counts and acceptance ratios of social exchanges. Agents are equipped with layered memory, dynamic planning, multimodal perception, and are instrumented with SocialMetrics, a suite of behavioral and structural metrics that quantifies plan revisions, unsafe-to-safe conversions, and information diffusion across networks. Experiments show that while agents can detect direct multimodal contradictions, they often fail to align local revisions with global safety, reaching only a 55 percent success rate in correcting unsafe plans. Across eight simulation runs with three models - Claude, GPT-4o mini, and Qwen-VL - five agents achieved average unsafe-to-safe conversion rates of 75, 55, and 58 percent, respectively. Overall performance ranged from 20 percent in multi-risk scenarios with GPT-4o mini to 98 percent in localized contexts such as fire/heat with Claude. Notably, 45 percent of unsafe actions were accepted when paired with misleading visuals, showing a strong tendency to overtrust images. These findings expose critical limitations in current architectures and provide a reproducible platform for studying multimodal safety, coherence, and social dynamics.

Generative UI (GenUI) lets large language models synthesize a complete, renderable interface directly from a natural-language instruction, but evaluating the quality of what they generate remains an open problem. Human evaluation is costly and rater-variant, while LLM-as-a-judge is scalable but reflects only a single implicit viewpoint, unable to capture how different populations of real users actually perceive the same interface. We propose the Evidence-Grounded, Social-Weighted Persona Panel (ESPP), a three-stage GenUI evaluation method in which a panel of psychologically diverse, evidence-grounded personas independently rates a screenshot, exchanges opinions under a trait-derived, semantically-gated bounded-confidence mechanism, and is aggregated via Delphi-inspired social weighting into a single judgment. ESPP tracks human judgment substantially more closely than a naive single-pass judge, raising Pearson r from 0.716 to 0.922, and a prompt-ensemble control recovers only about a third of this gap, isolating genuine persona and evidence grounding as the dominant source of improvement. Beyond this fidelity gain, retaining each panelist's individual rating further reveals that user subgroups agree on overall model rankings yet diverge sharply on specific rating dimensions, a structural disagreement a single homogeneous judge would systematically erase. The codes are available at https://github.com/Wuzheng02/ESPP.

Opinions are an integral part of how we perceive the world and each other. They shape collective action, playing a role in democratic processes, the evolution of norms, and cultural change. For decades, researchers in the social and natural sciences have tried to describe how shifting individual perspectives and social exchange lead to archetypal states of public opinion like consensus and polarization. Here we review some of the many contributions to the field, focusing both on idealized models of opinion dynamics, and attempts at validating them with observational data and controlled sociological experiments. By further closing the gap between models and data, these efforts may help us understand how to face current challenges that require the agreement of large groups of people in complex scenarios, such as economic inequality, climate change, and the ongoing fracture of the sociopolitical landscape.

The Multi-agent Path Finding (MAPF) problem involves finding collision-free paths for a team of agents in a known, static environment, with important applications in warehouse automation, logistics, or last-mile delivery. To meet the needs of these large-scale applications, current learning-based methods often deploy the same fully trained, decentralized network to all agents to improve scalability. However, such parameter sharing typically results in homogeneous behaviors among agents, which may prevent agents from breaking ties around symmetric conflict (e.g., bottlenecks) and might lead to live-/deadlocks. In this paper, we propose SYLPH, a novel learning-based MAPF framework aimed to mitigate the adverse effects of homogeneity by allowing agents to learn and dynamically select different social behaviors (akin to individual, dynamic roles), without affecting the scalability offered by parameter sharing. Specifically, SYLPH agents learn to select their Social Value Orientation (SVO) given the situation at hand, quantifying their own level of selfishness/altruism, as well as an SVO-conditioned MAPF policy dictating their movement actions. To these ends, each agent first determines the most influential other agent in the system by predicting future conflicts/interactions with other agents. Each agent selects its own SVO towards that agent, and trains its decentralized MAPF policy to enact this SVO until another agent becomes more influential. To further allow agents to consider each others' social preferences, each agent gets access to the SVO value of their neighbors. As a result of this hierarchical decision-making and exchange of social preferences, SYLPH endows agents with the ability to reason about the MAPF task through more latent spaces and nuanced contexts, leading to varied responses that can help break ties around symmetric conflicts. [...]