Evaluating research ideas generated by LLMs is difficult because their scientific value cannot be fully determined by objective criteria, and no single reference answer specifies what counts as a good idea. To address this challenge, we introduce Ideation Arena, a battle style platform that evaluates research ideas through pairwise human assessment. Ideation Arena evaluates ideas generated by 14 frontier LLMs and 5 research agent architectures built on 2 base models. To ensure a common starting point, Ideation Arena builds shared literature contexts from papers familiar to the participating researchers and provides the same contexts to all LLMs and agents. We collect over 6,000 double blind pairwise comparisons from 105 active computer science researchers and construct an Elo rating leaderboard for research ideation. We validate the rankings through interrater agreement and robustness analyses, showing that the leaderboard remains stable under changes in annotator composition and domain coverage. Our results show substantial variation in agent effectiveness, with some frameworks improving ideation quality over their backbones and others offering little benefit or even underperforming their base models. We further construct Ideation Arena Eval, a benchmark for assessing whether automated evaluators align with human preferences in research ideation. Experiments with current LLM judges show that they remain far from reliable human level assessment, with the best model reaching only 72.56% agreement on overall quality. Our code, data, and leaderboards are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/Ideation-Arena-2C21.

Instant-messaging human social chat typically progresses through a sequence of short messages. Existing step-by-step AI chatting systems typically split a one-shot generation into multiple messages and send them sequentially, but they lack an active waiting mechanism and exhibit unnatural message pacing. In order to address these issues, we propose Stephanie2, a new step-wise decision-making dialogue agent. With active waiting and message-pace adaptation, Stephanie2 explicitly decides at each step whether to send or wait, and models latency as the sum of thinking time and typing time to achieve more natural pacing. We further introduce a dual-agent dialogue system to generate pseudo dialogue histories for human and automatic evaluations. Experiments show that Stephanie2 clearly outperforms Stephanie1 on metrics such as naturalness and engagement, and achieves a higher pass rate on human evaluation with the role identification test.

In the rapidly evolving field of natural language processing, dialogue systems primarily employ a single-step dialogue paradigm. Although this paradigm is commonly adopted, it lacks the depth and fluidity of human interactions and does not appear natural. We introduce a novel Step-by-Step Dialogue Paradigm (Stephanie), designed to mimic the ongoing dynamic nature of human conversations. By employing a dual learning strategy and a further-split post-editing method, we generated and utilized a high-quality step-by-step dialogue dataset to fine-tune existing large language models, enabling them to perform step-by-step dialogues. We thoroughly present Stephanie. Tailored automatic and human evaluations are conducted to assess its effectiveness compared to the traditional single-step dialogue paradigm. We will release code, Stephanie datasets, and Stephanie LLMs to facilitate the future of chatbot eras.