Papers for

customer support ai developers

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Emotion labels often mix positive and negative feelings in text

Mixed Feelings, Single Polarity

Abstract: Emotion datasets are routinely mapped onto positive and negative valence, by assigning each emotion category one polarity. We test where this works and where it fails, using SemEval-2018 Affect in Tweets (English, Arabic, Spanish), Affective Text aligned with EmoBank, raw GoEmotions annotations, naturalistic hashtag corpora, and a controlled annotation study. Fixed projection works well when a text carries labels of one valence. It fails on a subset identifiable from the labels alone: tweets whose emotion labels point in opposite directions. These are 9.0% of polar SemEval test tweets but cause 54.8% of the polarity errors of a learned projection, are more than twice as likely to receive a neutral-or-mixed gold label, and are not rescued by modeling the full label set. Annotators produce such configurations routinely: 16.3% of multilabel GoEmotions judgments combine emotions from the dataset's own positive and negative parents. In a controlled study holding word and reader constant, context changes the coarse valence judgment in 56.8% of cases, against 19.9% for controls. We recommend projecting label configurations rather than labels, abstaining or keeping a mixed class where labels conflict, and reporting coverage alongside accuracy.

Sun 11 OctComputation and Language
The gist
Many emotion datasets try to label feelings as simply positive or negative by giving each emotion a single 'polarity.' The authors found this approach works well only when the text's emotions are clearly in one direction. But for texts expressing both positive and negative emotions at once, this method often fails and leads to errors. They show that such mixed emotions are common in real annotations and suggest handling these cases differently, such as keeping a 'mixed' label instead of forcing a single polarity.
Open → 2610.15977v1

Multi-agent system improves long-step evidence search and answer quality

Harness-Search: Guiding Long-Horizon Search through Multi-Agent Coordination

Abstract: Long-horizon search requires agents to gather evidence across multiple steps and synthesize it into well-supported answers. The recent agent harnesses provide a natural and promising framework to support such long-running search processes. As interaction histories grow, one single agent in harnesses might get stuck and cause the policy to lose track of unresolved questions, overlook useful evidence, or terminate before sufficient support has been collected. One of promising way is to decouple three distinct responsibilities of proposing retrieval actions, updating persistent state, and deciding when to stop rather than concentrating them within a single policy. Targeted at it, we introduce Harness-Search, a multi-agent search harness to reduce the local errors propagating across subsequent exploration, evidence curation, and termination decisions. In particular, Harness-Search assigns these responsibilities to three permission-bounded authorities: a Retrieval Policy that proposes search operations, a Memory Operator that validates and commits persistent-state updates, and a Summary Auditor that accepts or rejects termination based on the sufficiency of the curated evidence. Together, these roles form a Propose-Commit-Audit loop in which actions are proposed, persistent evidence is selectively committed, and stopping decisions are subjected to an explicit sufficiency check. Across seven long-horizon search benchmarks, Harness-Search improves both retrieval and answer generation under the same policy backbone, increasing Recall by 4.60-27.92 points and Final-Answer Recall by 12.34-30.13 points over the strongest harness-based baseline on each evidence-retrieval benchmark. Moreover, trajectory-level analyses show that Harness-Search continues to accumulate useful evidence and expand evidence coverage with less redundant retrieval as the search history grows.

Sun 4 OctComputation and Language
The gist
When machines need to find answers by gathering information step-by-step over a long time, they can get confused or stop too early. The authors created a system that splits this search into three teamwork roles: one finds information, another checks and saves it, and the last decides if enough has been found. This teamwork helps keep the search on track and collect better evidence. Tests show their system finds more useful information and makes better final answers than older methods.
Open → 2610.05382v1

Confidence-based system cuts costs for emotion detection in conversations

When to Call an LLM: A Confidence-Gated Hybrid for Cost-Effective Emotion Recognition in Conversational AI

Abstract: Emotion recognition in conversation (ERC) is a production capability behind agent-assist prompts, escalation routing, and post-call analytics in contact-center-as-a-service (CCaaS) platforms, where cost and latency constraints matter as much as accuracy. We report a systems-level comparison of three deployment options for dialogue-contextual ERC: a low-cost stacked ensemble (sentence embeddings, windowed context, RandomForest/XGBoost/logistic-regression stacking), off-the-shelf LLM prompting (GPT-4o-mini; zero-shot, few-shot, chain-of-thought), and a confidence-gated hybrid that escalates only the ensemble's least-confident predictions to the LLM - modeled on IVA-to-human-agent escalation policies used in production contact centers. On IEMOCAP, the ensemble significantly outperforms every LLM configuration (0.595 vs. 0.460-0.536 weighted F1, p < 0.0001) at a fraction of the cost and sub-10ms latency; on MELD and CMU-MOSI the ranking reverses, showing neither pure system is a safe default. The confidence-gated hybrid resolves this by Pareto-dominating both pure systems on all three datasets (0.620, 0.643, 0.824 weighted F1) while routing the majority of traffic through the near-zero-cost ensemble, translating to roughly $10-85 per million utterances versus $99-170 for an LLM-only pipeline. The escalation policy is not an opaque cost/accuracy dial: escalated turns disproportionately follow an emotion or sentiment shift, giving operators an interpretable, auditable routing signal, and the ensemble's confidence is well-calibrated and safely under- rather than over-confident. The pattern holds across three datasets and two LLM providers. Confidence-gated cascading is established in general ML systems; our contribution is showing it transfers cleanly to dialogue-contextual ERC, yielding a concrete deployment recipe for CCaaS and conversational-AI platforms deciding how to allocate LLM spend.

Wed 16 SeptArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Detecting emotions in conversations helps improve things like customer service and call analysis but can be slow or expensive when using large AI models. The authors compare three approaches: a fast, cheaper method; a more accurate but costly large language model; and a new hybrid that uses the cheaper method most of the time but switches to the bigger model when unsure. This hybrid method balances cost, speed, and accuracy better than either method alone, making it practical for real-world use. Plus, it only asks for help when emotions seem to shift, which helps monitor and manage the system.
Open → 2609.17977v1

Agent confidence improves by analyzing internal model signals

Do Agents Know When They Succeed? Calibrating Agent Confidence from Internal Representations

Abstract: As agentic systems getting adopted rapidly in safety critical applications, it is vital to measure the confidence associated with the agentic actions. In comparison to the traditional machine learning systems, agentic workflows have complex failure modes with planning, tool invocation and dynamic environment interactions. In this paper, we investigate whether model's internal representations provide stronger signals of eventual task success in multi-turn agentic setups. We introduce two complementary methods: Latent Trajectory Dynamics (LTD), which summarizes changes in residual-stream representations across an an interaction trajectory, and the Action Representation Probe (ARP), which predicts success from representations formed at action decisions. Across three interactive benchmarks (Bash, SQL, Python) and three model families (Qwen14B, Qwen7B, DeepSeek6.7B), our methods consistently outperform surface level generation and sequence-based calibration baselines providing a zero-overhead reliability monitor that requires neither prompt alterations nor multi-sample rollouts.

Tue 8 SeptArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Knowing when AI helpers succeed is important, especially when they do many steps and interact with tools. The authors studied if the AI's own internal 'thought process' can better predict success than just looking at its output. They created two methods to read these internal signals and tested them on tasks involving coding and commands. Their methods worked better at telling if the AI would succeed without extra slow checks or changes to how the AI is prompted.
Open → 2609.09448v1