Active Listening: Personalized Question Generation in Open-Domain Social Conversation with User Model Based Prompting
Large language models (LLMs) capable of casual conversation have recently become widely available. We hypothesize that users of conversational systems want a more personalized experience, and existing work shows that users are highly receptive to personalized questions (PQs). Question Generation tasks, however, focus on factual questions from textual excerpts. To create a PQ generator, we first identify over 400 real user interests by anonymously aggregating ∼39K user models. We then populate prompt templates with these 400 interests and use an LLM to generate PQs customized to user interests. The result is PerQs, a novel corpus of ∼19K question/answer pairs. We evaluate PerQs at scale in the unique context of the Alexa Prize. Our results show significant positive effects on perceived conversation quality. We then fine-tune, deploy, and evaluate PerQy, a neural model that generates PQs in real-time. When evaluated against several competitive LLM baselines, PerQy produced the most natural and engaging responses.
Introduction. Large language models (LLMs) capable of casual conversation have recently become widely available, leading to an increase in research in social open-domain dialogue (Higashinaka et al., 2021, 2014; Zhang et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2023; Zheng et al., 2023; Ouyang et al., 2022) inter alia. In addition, challenges like the Alexa Prize Socialbot Challenge (henceforth AP) (Gabriel et al., 2020; Hu et al., 2021b; Johnston et al., 2023) have given real users the ability to access and evaluate spoken conversational systems in their home. We hypothesize that users of such conversational systems want a more personalized experience (Ritschel et al., 2017; Sugiyama et al., 2014; Bickmore and Picard, 2005; Clark et al., 2019). Research shows that conversational partners are more well-liked if they ask more follow-up ques- tions (Huang et al., 2017), and such questions show that the hearer is listening and understanding (Bevacqua et al., 2012; Meguro et al., 2014; Reis et al., 2011; Reis and Patrick, 1996).
Discussion / Conclusion. around open-domain dialogue system design as it suggests the potential of a neuro-symbolic approach instead of relying on a single larger general model. It is worth noting that response latency is not considered during judgment, so this study does not reflect the increased risk associated with using larger, slower models in a real-time dialogue system. The differences between PerQy and the other LLMs are statistically significant (χ2 ≥24.824 and p ≤0.001) for all 4 judgments. Fewer differences are statistically significant when collapsing the Slightly and Definitely labels into a single label. generate PerQy’s training data. This may indicate that PerQy’s compact model captures core nuances specific to PQs that a general LLM loses. Using collapsed labels, Vicuna 33B, the largest model we examined, still outperforms PerQy with respect to engagement and consistency. Figure 8 and Figure 9 show instances where all five Mechanical Turkers prefer Vicuna-33B when Personalized Question Generation (PQG) is a unique task focused on generating PQs in conversations. We use an LLM to generate PerQs, a corpus of ∼19K personalized questions and answers based on real user interests.
Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24
Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.
How do LLM judges' systematic biases affect alignment and evaluation outcomes?- Can LLM judges reliably estimate when they lack sufficient persona information?
- Do LLM judges with diverse personas resist individual biases better than single evaluators?
- What does McDonald's omega reveal about LLM judgment consistency?
- How do calibration and reliability differ in LLM judge evaluations?
- What other evaluation biases exist in LLM judge systems?
- How much task-relevant persona information is needed for accurate preference prediction?
- How do LLM personas compare to demographic targeting?
- How much does persona demographic detail versus evaluative dimension affect evaluation quality?
- Can persona profiles be enriched to constrain LLM predictions and reduce run-to-run variance?
- How does textual-only feedback limit what a persona can learn about users?
- How does data scarcity in user populations amplify persona similarity errors?
- Why does persona-level information often fail to predict individual preferences?
- How much does sparse persona information limit the power of conditioning?
- Why do LLM personas struggle with specificity in specialized domains like law?
- Can an LLM be well calibrated but still unreliable on single evaluations?