Rema Padman

Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized conversational AI, yet their robustness in extended multi-turn dialogues remains poorly understood. Existing evaluation frameworks focus on static benchmarks and single-turn assessments, failing to capture the temporal dynamics of conversational degradation that characterize real-world interactions. In this work, we present a large-scale survival analysis of conversational robustness, modeling failure as a time-to-event process over 36,951 turns from 9 state-of-the-art LLMs on the MT-Consistency benchmark. Our framework combines Cox proportional hazards, Accelerated Failure Time (AFT), and Random Survival Forest models with simple semantic drift features. We find that abrupt prompt-to-prompt semantic drift sharply increases the hazard of inconsistency, whereas cumulative drift is counterintuitively \emph{protective}, suggesting adaptation in conversations that survive multiple shifts. AFT models with model-drift interactions achieve the best combination of discrimination and calibration, and proportional hazards checks reveal systematic violations for key drift covariates, explaining the limitations of Cox-style modeling in this setting. Finally, we show that a lightweight AFT model can be turned into a turn-level risk monitor that flags most failing conversations several turns before the first inconsistent answer while keeping false alerts modest. These results establish survival analysis as a powerful paradigm for evaluating multi-turn robustness and for designing practical safeguards for conversational AI systems.

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.