Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly leveraged to empower autonomous agents to simulate human beings in various fields of behavioral research. However, evaluating their capacity to navigate complex social interactions remains a challenge. Previous studies face limitations due to insufficient scenario diversity, complexity, and a single-perspective focus. To this end, we introduce AgentSense: Benchmarking Social Intelligence of Language Agents through Interactive Scenarios. Drawing on Dramaturgical Theory, AgentSense employs a bottom-up approach to create 1,225 diverse social scenarios constructed from extensive scripts. We evaluate LLM-driven agents through multi-turn interactions, emphasizing both goal completion and implicit reasoning. We analyze goals using ERG theory and conduct comprehensive experiments. Our findings highlight that LLMs struggle with goals in complex social scenarios, especially high-level growth needs, and even GPT-4o requires improvement in private information reasoning.

How can we construct an automated debate judge to evaluate an extensive, vibrant, multi-turn debate? This task is challenging, as judging a debate involves grappling with lengthy texts, intricate argument relationships, and multi-dimensional assessments.At the same time, current research mainly focuses on short dialogues, rarely touching upon the evaluation of an entire debate.In this paper, by leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs), we propose Debatrix, which makes the analysis and assessment of multi-turn debates more aligned with majority preferences. Specifically, Debatrix features a vertical, iterative chronological analysis and a horizontal, multi-dimensional evaluation collaboration.To align with real-world debate scenarios, we introduced the PanelBench benchmark, comparing our system’s performance to actual debate outcomes.The findings indicate a notable enhancement over directly using LLMs for debate evaluation.Source code and benchmark data are available at https://github.com/ljcleo/debatrix.

The knowledge graph is a structure to store and represent knowledge, and recent studies have discussed its capability to assist language models for various applications. Some variations of knowledge graphs aim to record arguments and their relations for computational argumentation tasks. However, many must simplify semantic types to fit specific schemas, thus losing flexibility and expression ability. In this paper, we propose the **Hi**erarchical **Ar**gumentation **G**raph (Hi-ArG), a new structure to organize arguments. We also introduce two approaches to exploit Hi-ArG, including a text-graph multi-modal model GreaseArG and a new pre-training framework augmented with graph information. Experiments on two argumentation tasks have shown that after further pre-training and fine-tuning, GreaseArG supersedes same-scale language models on these tasks, while incorporating graph information during further pre-training can also improve the performance of vanilla language models. Code for this paper is available at <https://github.com/ljcleo/Hi-ArG>.