Enhancing User-Oriented Proactivity in Open-Domain Dialogues with Critic Guidance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Open-domain dialogue systems aim to generate natural and engaging conversations, providing significant practical value in real applications such as social robotics and personal assistants. The advent of large language models (LLMs) has greatly advanced this field by improving context understanding and conversational fluency. However, existing LLM-based dialogue systems often fall short in proactively understanding the user's chatting preferences and guiding conversations toward user-centered topics. This lack of user-oriented proactivity can lead users to feel unappreciated, reducing their satisfaction and willingness to continue the conversation in human-computer interactions. To address this issue, we propose a User-oriented Proactive Chatbot (UPC) to enhance the user-oriented proactivity. Specifically, we first construct a critic to evaluate this proactivity inspired by the LLM-as-a-judge strategy. Given the scarcity of high-quality training data, we then employ the critic to guide dialogues between the chatbot and user agents, generating a corpus with enhanced user-oriented proactivity. To ensure the diversity of the user backgrounds, we introduce the ISCO-800, a diverse user background dataset for constructing user agents. Moreover, considering the communication difficulty varies among users, we propose an iterative curriculum learning method that trains the chatbot from easy-to-communicate users to more challenging ones, thereby gradually enhancing its performance. Experiments demonstrate that our proposed training method is applicable to different LLMs, improving user-oriented proactivity and attractiveness in open-domain dialogues. Code and appendix are available at github.com/wang678/LLM-UPC.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".