Evaluating LLM-Generated Versus Human-Authored Responses in Role-Play Dialogues

Dongxu Lu; Johan Jeuring; Albert Gatt

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2509.17694

Evaluating LLM-Generated Versus Human-Authored Responses in Role-Play Dialogues

Dongxu Lu·Johan Jeuring·Albert Gatt

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) in long-form, knowledge-grounded role-play dialogues remains challenging. This study compares LLM-generated and human-authored responses in multi-turn professional training simulations through human evaluation ($N=38$) and automated LLM-as-a-judge assessment. Human evaluation revealed significant degradation in LLM-generated response quality across turns, particularly in naturalness, context maintenance and overall quality, while human-authored responses progressively improved. In line with this finding, participants also indicated a consistent preference for human-authored dialogue. These human judgements were validated by our automated LLM-as-a-judge evaluation, where Gemini 2.0 Flash achieved strong alignment with human evaluators on both zero-shot pairwise preference and stochastic 6-shot construct ratings, confirming the widening quality gap between LLM and human responses over time. Our work contributes a multi-turn benchmark exposing LLM degradation in knowledge-grounded role-play dialogues and provides a validated hybrid evaluation framework to guide the reliable integration of LLMs in training simulations.

Explore related subjects

cs.CL cs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Dongxu Lu, Johan Jeuring, Albert Gatt. 2025-10-08. Evaluating LLM-Generated Versus Human-Authored Responses in Role-Play Dialogues. https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.17694

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

DA-Cramming: Enhancing Cost-Effective Language Model Pretraining with Dependency Agreement Integration

Pretraining language models is still a challenge for many researchers due to its substantial computational costs. As such, there is growing interest in developing more affordable pretraining methods. One notable advancement in this area is the Cramming technique (Geiping and Goldstein, 2022), which enables the pretraining of BERT-style language models using just one GPU in a single day. Building on this innovative approach, we introduce the Dependency Agreement Cramming (DA-Cramming), an efficient framework that integrates information about dependency agreements into the pretraining process. Unlike existing methods that leverage similar semantic information during finetuning, our approach represents a pioneering effort focusing on enhancing the foundational language understanding with semantic information during pretraining. We meticulously design a dual-stage pretraining work flow with four dedicated submodels to capture representative dependency agreements at the chunk level, effectively transforming these agreements into embeddings to benefit the pretraining. Extensive empirical results demonstrate that our method significantly outperforms previous methods across various tasks.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

BigO(Bench): Can LLMs Generate Code with Controlled Time and Space Complexity?

We introduce BigO(Bench), a novel coding benchmark designed to evaluate the capabilities of generative language models in understanding and generating code with specified time and space complexities. This benchmark addresses the gap in current evaluations that often overlook the ability of models to comprehend and produce code constrained by computational complexity. BigO(Bench) includes tooling to infer the algorithmic complexity of any Python function from profiling measurements, including human- or LLM-generated solutions. BigO(Bench) also includes of set of 3,105 coding problems and 1,190,250 solutions from Code Contests annotated with inferred (synthetic) time and space complexity labels from the complexity framework, as well as corresponding runtime and memory footprint values for a large set of input sizes. We present results from evaluating multiple state-of-the-art language models on this benchmark, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses in handling complexity requirements. In particular, token-space reasoning models are unrivaled in code generation but not in complexity understanding, hinting that they may not generalize well to tasks for which no reward was given at training time.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

UR$^2$: Unify RAG and Reasoning through Reinforcement Learning

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown strong capabilities through two complementary paradigms: Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) for knowledge grounding and Reinforcement Learning from Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) for complex reasoning. However, existing attempts to unify these paradigms remain narrow in scope, typically limited to open-domain QA with fixed retrieval settings, which constrains generalization to broader domains. To address this limitation, we propose UR$^2$ (Unified RAG and Reasoning)), a general reinforcement learning framework that dynamically coordinates retrieval and reasoning. UR$^2$ introduces two key designs: a difficulty-aware curriculum that selectively invokes retrieval only for challenging instances, and a hybrid knowledge access strategy that combines domain-specific offline corpora with on-the-fly LLM-generated summaries. Together, these components mitigate the imbalance between retrieval and reasoning and improve robustness to noisy information. Experiments on open-domain QA, MMLU-Pro, medical, and mathematical reasoning tasks show that UR$^2$, built on Qwen-2.5-3/7B and LLaMA-3.1-8B, consistently outperforms existing RAG and RL baselines, and achieves performance comparable to GPT-4o-mini and GPT-4.1-mini on several benchmarks. Code, models, and data are available at https://github.com/Tsinghua-dhy/UR2.

cs.CL↗