Resource I: Interactive and Conversational Search

User simulators are essential for evaluating search systems, but they primarily copy user actions without understanding the underlying thought process. This gap exists because large-scale interaction logs record what users do, but not what they might be thinking or feeling, such as confusion or satisfaction. To solve this problem, we present a new framework that computationally infers cognitive traces from behavioral data. Our method uses a multi-agent language model system, grounded in Information Foraging Theory and calibrated by human experts, to annotate user actions with their likely cognitive state. To show the value of these traces, we demonstrate that they significantly improve a model's ability to predict when a user will abandon a search task. We release a collection of annotations for several public datasets, including AOL and Stack Overflow, and an open-source tool that allows researchers to apply our method to their own data. This work provides the tools and data needed to build more human-like user simulators and to assess retrieval systems on user-oriented dimensions of performance.

Resources for simulation-based evaluation of conversational recommender systems (CRSs) are scarce. The UserSimCRS toolkit was introduced to address this gap. In this work, we present UserSimCRS v2, a significant upgrade aligning the toolkit with state-of-the-art research. Key extensions include an enhanced agenda-based user simulator, introduction of large language model-based simulators, integration for a wider range of CRSs and datasets, and new LLM-as-a-judge evaluation utilities. We demonstrate these extensions in a case study.

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has transformed conversational systems into practical tools used by millions. However, the nature and necessity of information retrieval in real-world conversations remain largely unexplored, as research has focused predominantly on traditional, explicit information access conversations. The central question is: What does real-world conversational information access look like? To this end, we first conduct an observational study on the WildChat dataset, large-scale user-ChatGPT conversations, finding that users' access to information occurs implicitly as check-worthy factual assertions made by the system, even when the conversation's primary intent is non-informational, such as creative writing. To enable the systematic study of this phenomenon, we release the WildClaims dataset, a novel resource consisting of 121,905 extracted factual claims from 7,587 utterances in 3,000 WildChat conversations, each annotated for check-worthiness. Our preliminary analysis of this resource reveals that conservatively 18% to 51% of conversations contain check-worthy assertions, depending on the methods employed, and less conservatively, as many as 76% may contain such assertions. This high prevalence underscores the importance of moving beyond the traditional understanding of explicit information access, to address the implicit information access that arises in real-world user-system conversations.