Agent skills are procedural artifacts that enable LLM agents to execute workflows, verify constraints, and recover from failures. Existing self-evolving methods refine skills using accumulated trajectories. However, they struggle in cold-start settings, where only an initial, imperfect skill is available. Consequently, skill construction defaults to expert authoring or one-shot LLM generation. Expert-authored skills are costly and may not align with how LLM agents actually execute tasks, while one-shot generated skills can be syntactically well formed yet behaviorally weak. To bridge this gap, we propose SkillRevise, an execution-grounded framework designed to iteratively refine these initial skills. SkillRevise diagnoses skill defects from execution evidence, retrieves relevant repair principles from a general memory, and applies execution-anchored edits. By re-executing candidates and measuring empirical utility, it retains the best observed skill within the revision budget. Evaluated across three main benchmarks, two domain-specific studies, and six LLMs, SkillRevise substantially outperforms one-shot baselines—improving the base agent’s success rate on SkillsBench from 36.05% to 61.63%. Furthermore, the revised skills transfer across both executors and task environments, suggesting that SkillRevise captures reusable procedural knowledge beyond any single executor. Our code is available at https://github.com/HKUST-KnowComp/skillrevise.

Memory-augmented conversational agents enable personalized interactions using long-term user memory and have gained substantial traction. However, existing benchmarks primarily focus on whether agents can recall and apply user information, while overlooking whether such personalization is used appropriately. In fact, agents may overuse personal information, producing responses that feel forced, intrusive, or socially inappropriate to users. We refer to this issue as **over-personalization**. In this work, we formalize over-personalization into three types: Irrelevance, Repetition, and Sycophancy, and introduce **OP-Bench**, a benchmark of 1,700 verified instances constructed from long-horizon dialogue histories. Using OP-Bench, we evaluate multiple large language models and memory-augmentation methods, and find that over-personalization is widespread when memory is introduced. Further analysis reveals that agents tend to retrieve and over-attend to user memories even when unnecessary. We further evaluate existing post-processing strategies for mitigating this issue, but find that they provide only limited improvements and often reduce personalization performance. Our results highlight over-personalization as a challenging and largely unresolved problem in memory-augmented dialogue systems.

Emotional Support Conversation requires not only affective expression but also grounded instrumental support to provide trustworthy guidance. However, existing ESC systems and benchmarks largely focus on affective support in text-only settings, overlooking how external tools can enable factual grounding and reduce hallucination in multi-turn emotional support. We introduce TEA-Bench, the first interactive benchmark for evaluating tool-augmented agents in ESC, featuring realistic emotional scenarios, an MCP-style tool environment, and process-level metrics that jointly assess the quality and factual grounding of emotional support. Experiments on nine LLMs show that tool augmentation generally improves emotional support quality and reduces hallucination, but the gains are strongly capacity-dependent: stronger models use tools more selectively and effectively, while weaker models benefit only marginally. We further release TEA-Dialog, a dataset of tool-enhanced ESC dialogues, and find that supervised fine-tuning improves in-distribution support but generalizes poorly. Our results underscore the importance of tool use in building reliable emotional support agents.

Long-term memory enables large language model (LLM) agents to support personalized and sustained interactions.However, most work on personalized agents prioritizes utility and user experience, treating memory as a neutral component and largely overlooking its safety implications.In this paper, we reveal intent legitimation, a previously underexplored safety failure in personalized agents, where benign personal memories bias intent inference and cause models to legitimize inherently harmful queries.To study this phenomenon, we introduce PS-Bench, a benchmark designed to identify and quantify intent legitimation in personalized interactions.Across multiple memory-augmented agent frameworks and base LLMs, personalization increases attack success rates by 15.8%–243.7% relative to stateless baselines.We further provide mechanistic evidence for intent legitimation from internal representation space, and propose a lightweight detection–reflection method that effectively reduces safety degradation.Overall, our work provides the first systematic exploration and evaluation of intent legitimation as a safety failure mode that naturally arises from benign, real-world personalization, highlighting the importance of assessing safety under long-term personal context. WARNING: This paper may contain harmful content.

The growing emotional stress in modern society has increased the demand for Emotional Support Conversations (ESC). While Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise for ESC, they face two key challenges: (1) low strategy selection accuracy, and (2) preference bias, limiting their adaptability to users’ emotional needs. Existing supervised fine-tuning (SFT) struggles to address these issues, as it rigidly trains models on single gold-standard responses without modeling nuanced strategy trade-offs. To overcome these limitations, we propose a novel two-stage framework that optimizes strategy selection preferences at each dialogue turn. We first leverage Monte Carlo Tree Search to construct ESC-Pro, a high-quality preference dataset with turn-level strategy-response pairs. Then training on ESC-Pro with Chain-of-Strategy Optimization (CSO) improves both strategy accuracy and bias mitigation, enabling LLMs to generate more empathetic and contextually appropriate responses. Experiments on LLaMA-3.1-8B, Gemma-2-9B, and Qwen2.5-7B demonstrate that CSO outperforms standard SFT, highlighting the efficacy of fine-grained, turn-level preference modeling in ESC.

Despite extensive efforts in safety alignment, large language models (LLMs) remain vulnerable to jailbreak attacks. Activation steering offers a training-free defense method but relies on fixed steering coefficients, resulting in suboptimal protection and increased false rejections of benign inputs. To address this, we propose AdaSteer, an adaptive activation steering method that dynamically adjusts model behavior based on input characteristics. We identify two key properties: Rejection Law (R-Law), which shows that stronger steering is needed for jailbreak inputs opposing the rejection direction, and Harmfulness Law (H-Law), which differentiates adversarial and benign inputs. AdaSteer steers input representations along both the Rejection Direction (RD) and Harmfulness Direction (HD), with adaptive coefficients learned via logistic regression, ensuring robust jailbreak defense while preserving benign input handling. Experiments on LLaMA-3.1, Gemma-2, and Qwen2.5 show that AdaSteer outperforms baseline methods across multiple jailbreak attacks with minimal impact on utility. Our results highlight the potential of interpretable model internals for real-time, flexible safety enforcement in LLMs.

Role-playing enables large language models (LLMs) to engage users in immersive and personalized interactions, but it also introduces significant safety risks. Existing role-play fine-tuning techniques improve role adaptability but may degrade safety performance, particularly for villainous characters. In this work, we conduct the first comprehensive assessment of role-play fine-tuning risks by training 95 role-specific LLMs using RoleBench. Our experiments reveal that role-play fine-tuning leads to a noticeable decline in safety performance, with safety risks varying based on character traits. To tackle this challenge, we propose Safety-Aware Role-Play Fine-Tuning (SaRFT), a novel method designed to balance role-playing capabilities and safety. Extensive experiments on LLaMA-3-8B-Instruct, Gemma-2-9B-it, and Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct demonstrate that SaRFT consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines under both LoRA and full-parameter fine-tuning settings. Our findings highlight the necessity of role-adaptive safety measures and provide insights into mitigating role-specific safety risks in role-playing LLMs.

Large language models (LLMs) have become increasingly central to AI applications worldwide, necessitating robust multilingual safety alignment to ensure secure deployment across diverse linguistic contexts. Existing preference learning methods for safety alignment, such as RLHF and DPO, are primarily monolingual and struggle with noisy multilingual data. To address these limitations, we introduce Multilingual reward gaP Optimization (MPO), a novel approach that leverages the well-aligned safety capabilities of the dominant language (e.g., English) to improve safety alignment across multiple languages. MPO directly minimizes the reward gap difference between the dominant language and target languages, effectively transferring safety capabilities while preserving the original strengths of the dominant language. Extensive experiments on three LLMs, LLaMA-3.1, Gemma-2 and Qwen2.5, validate MPO’s efficacy in multilingual safety alignment without degrading general multilingual utility.