探索全球前沿学术脉络

Dynamic In-Group Persona Generation for Enhancing Human-AI Rapport

arXiv:2606.18256v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-based chatbots are increasingly applied in interpersonal domains such as counseling and peer support, where establishing human-AI rapport is crucial yet remains challenging. In this work, we introduce a novel approach for conditioning LLMs with in-group personas, which (i) first identifies a user's primary concern and brief personal context (e.g., a computer science undergraduate worried about future career prospects), and (ii) generates a synthetic in-group persona that shares a similar primary concern while differing in background and narrative details, such as age or profession (e.g., a junior researcher at an AI startup). Furthermore, we conduct a human-subject study to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of in-group persona agents in enhancing human-AI rapport. We compare our approach against two baseline conditions: a conventional agent without persona conditioning and an agent exhibiting minimal self-disclosure (e.g., "I've felt that too"). Results from post-task questionnaires assessing rapport and user experience indicate that the in-group persona agent significantly improves perceived rapport and personal relevance compared to the baselines, and also yields more positive user experience-most notably higher engagement.

Judging Against the Reference: Uncovering Knowledge-Driven Failures in LLM-Judges on QA Evaluation

While large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automatic judges for question answering (QA) and other reference-conditioned evaluation tasks, little is known about their ability to adhere to a provided reference. We identify a critical failure mode of such reference-based LLM QA evaluation: when the provided reference conflicts with the judge model's parametric knowledge, the resulting scores become unreliable, substantially degrading evaluation fidelity. To study this phenomenon systematically, we introduce a controlled swapped-reference QA framework that induces reference-belief conflicts. Specifically, we replace the reference answer with an incorrect entity and construct diverse pairings of original and swapped references with correspondingly aligned candidate answers. Surprisingly, grading reliability drops sharply under swapped references across a broad set of judge models. We empirically show that this vulnerability is driven by judges' over-reliance on parametric knowledge, leading judges to disregard the given reference under conflict. Finally, we find that this failure persists under common prompt-based mitigation strategies, highlighting a fundamental limitation of LLM-as-a-judge evaluation and motivating reference-based protocols that enforce stronger adherence to the provided reference.