arXiv:2504.04717v5 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have substantially improved single-turn task performance, yet real-world applications increasingly demand sophisticated multi-turn interactions. This survey provides a comprehensive review of recent progress in evaluating and enhancing multi-turn LLM interactions. Centered on a task-oriented taxonomy-spanning instruction following in domains such as mathematics and coding, and conversational engagement in role-playing, healthcare, education, and adversarial jailbreak settings-we systematically examine the challenges of maintaining context, coherence, fairness, and responsiveness across prolonged dialogues. We organize existing benchmarks and datasets into coherent categories reflecting the evolving landscape of multi-turn dialogue evaluation, and review a broad spectrum of enhancement methodologies, including model-centric strategies (in-context learning, supervised fine-tuning, reinforcement learning, and architectural innovations), external integration approaches (memory augmentation, retrieval-based methods, and knowledge graphs), and agent-based techniques for collaborative interaction. Finally, we identify open challenges and promising directions for future research to further improve the robustness and effectiveness of multi-turn LLM interactions.

arXiv:2602.13093v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large reasoning models with reasoning capabilities achieve state-of-the-art performance on complex tasks, but their robustness under multi-turn adversarial pressure remains underexplored. We evaluate nine frontier reasoning models under adversarial attacks. Our findings reveal that reasoning confers meaningful but incomplete robustness: most reasoning models studied significantly outperform instruction-tuned baselines, yet all exhibit distinct vulnerability profiles, with misleading suggestions universally effective and social pressure showing model-specific efficacy. Through trajectory analysis, we identify five failure modes (Self-Doubt, Social Conformity, Suggestion Hijacking, Emotional Susceptibility, and Reasoning Fatigue) with the first two accounting for 50% of failures. We further demonstrate that Confidence-Aware Response Generation (CARG), effective for standard LLMs, fails for reasoning models due to overconfidence induced by extended reasoning traces; counterintuitively, random confidence embedding outperforms targeted extraction. Our results highlight that reasoning capabilities do not automatically confer adversarial robustness and that confidence-based defenses require fundamental redesign for reasoning models.