Zibo Ji
Publications
From Profiling to Synthesis: Benchmarking Implicit Behavioral Alignment in Personalized LLM Agents
Large Language Models have enabled increasingly capable autonomous agents, yet personalization remains critical for making such agents practically useful. Recent benchmarks have begun evaluating personalization in agents, but they largely rely on static preference snapshots, fixed interaction logs, or question answering over predefined user profiles. Such designs fail to capture the complexity of evolving user preferences and neglect preference-conditioned task execution-a discrepancy we term as the knowledge-to-action gap. To address this challenge, we introduce IBA-Bench, a benchmark for implicit behavioral alignment constructed from longitudinal interaction histories that contain noise, implicit cues, and temporal inconsistencies. Unlike prior work, IBA-Bench evaluates whether an agent can execute tasks while satisfying implicit user constraints inferred from historical interactions. We further propose IBA-Agent, an agent framework that reconciles conflicting priorities through broad retrieval and trajectory-level alignment. Experiment results on IBA-Bench show that effective personalization remains a significant challenge for state-of-the-art LLM agents, and the proposed IBA-Agent substantially improves behavioral alignment in complex scenarios across nine application domains.
Taming Actor-Observer Asymmetry in Agents via Dialectical Alignment
Large Language Model agents have rapidly evolved from static text generators into dynamic systems capable of executing complex autonomous workflows. To enhance reliability, multi-agent frameworks assigning specialized roles are increasingly adopted to enable self-reflection and mutual auditing. While such role-playing effectively leverages domain expert knowledge, we find it simultaneously induces a human-like cognitive bias known as Actor-Observer Asymmetry (AOA). Specifically, an agent acting as an actor (during self-reflection) tends to attribute failures to external factors, whereas an observer (during mutual auditing) attributes the same errors to internal faults. We quantify this using our new Ambiguous Failure Benchmark, which reveals that simply swapping perspectives triggers the AOA effect in over 20% of cases for most models. To tame this bias, we introduce ReTAS (Reasoning via Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis), a model trained through dialectical alignment to enforce perspective-invariant reasoning. By integrating dialectical chain-of-thought with Group Relative Policy Optimization, ReTAS guides agents to synthesize conflicting viewpoints into an objective consensus. Experiments demonstrate that ReTAS effectively mitigates attribution inconsistency and significantly improves fault resolution rates in ambiguous scenarios.