Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Steering Conversational Large Language Models for Long Emotional Support Conversations

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2402.10453 v2 pith:YL3DIKOL submitted 2024-02-16 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords modelmodelsstrategyaddressattentionchallengeconversationalconversations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this study, we address the challenge of enabling large language models (LLMs) to consistently adhere to emotional support strategies in extended conversations. We focus on the steerability of the Llama-2 and Llama-3 suite of models, examining their ability to maintain these strategies throughout interactions. To assess this, we introduce the Strategy Relevant Attention (SRA) metric, which quantifies the model's adherence to the prompted strategy through attention maps. To facilitate our study, we create a strategy-conditioned synthetic conversational dataset derived from the ESConv dataset. We also propose various baselines informed by our proposed SRA metric to address the challenge and propose a fine-tuned model that significantly enhances the steerability of the base model in following the strategy throughout the conversation. The code and data are publicly available on our GitHub.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. ESC-Judge: A Framework for Comparing Emotional Support Conversational Agents

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ESC-Judge automates head-to-head evaluation of emotional-support chatbots using Hill's Exploration-Insight-Action rubric, with an LLM judge reported to match PhD annotators on roughly 85 percent of comparisons.

  2. Do We Talk to Robots Like Therapists, and Do They Respond Accordingly? Language Alignment in AI Emotional Support

    cs.HC 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    About 91% of disclosures to a robot mapped onto themes from human therapy conversations, and robot and therapist responses showed high semantic overlap under Word2Vec and BERT embeddings.

Pith tools