Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 32 references

Fine-Grained Behavior Simulation with Role-Playing Large Language Model on Social Media

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read LLMs simulate social-media users more accurately when their reasoning is explicitly split into observation and memory analysis.

desk verdict Useful new benchmark with a real confound in its distractor design; worth reviewing, but the central claim needs a retrieval baseline before I'd trust it. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03148 v1 pith:FWLJF2SW submitted 2024-12-04 cs.CL cs.AIcs.CY

Kun Li , Chenwei Dai , Wei Zhou , Songlin Hu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.CY
keywords largelanguagemodelsrole-playingbehaviorsimulationsocialmediachain-of-thoughtfine-tuningOM-CoTFineRobpersonalization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that fine-grained user behavior simulation is a measurable, learnable task and that an LLM's success at it depends on how it reasons. It introduces FineRob, a benchmark of 78.6k multiple-choice questions built from the real behavioral histories of 1,866 users on Twitter, Reddit, and Zhihu, with each action decomposed into object, type, and content. Analyzing chain-of-thought traces, the authors find that models usually reason in one of two ways: relying on role stereotypes or comparing current options against remembered past behaviors, with the latter producing more accurate predictions. Based on this, they propose OM-CoT fine-tuning, which forces the model to write separate observation analyses and memory analyses using special tokens. On Mistral-7B and Solar-10.7B, this structured fine-tuning outperforms zero-shot, few-shot, and standard CoT fine-tuning across most sub-tasks, so the central claim is that structuring reasoning into observation and memory is a practical way to improve behavior simulation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is OM-CoT fine-tuning, a supervised fine-tuning procedure whose training data is a chain-of-thought trace reorganized with two special tokens: <ANA> wraps analysis of the candidate options at hand, and <MEM> wraps recall of the user's historical behaviors, followed by an explicit final decision. An oracle setting generates the CoT with the correct answer visible so the teacher can reference the real behavior without leaking the answer in the reasoning text. FineRob is the measuring instrument: each behavior is split into object, type, and content, and each question is a multiple-choice item whose negative options are sampled by sentence-embedding similarity with sentiment alignment, making the task difficult enough to separate reasoning strategies.

What would settle it

Take a random sample of FineRob test items and have human raters decide whether the recorded behavior is what the user would most plausibly do; if agreement with the automatic labels is low, the benchmark scores are not measuring real behavior simulation. Alternatively, fine-tune with the CoT split at random positions into two labeled segments instead of the true <ANA>/<MEM> split; if accuracy does not drop, the semantic roles of the tokens are not the cause.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the reasoning pattern an LLM uses during behavior simulation determines its accuracy, and that the effective pattern can be trained explicitly. On the FineRob benchmark, the authors identify 'role stereotype-based reasoning'—which over-relies on the persona profile—and 'observation and memory-based reasoning'—which relates candidate behaviors to the user's past actions. Advanced models such as GPT-4o naturally favor the latter, and similarity analysis of reasoning traces shows that higher alignment with role profiles does not improve accuracy, while alignment with history and options does. The paper's OM-CoT method operationalizes this by fine-tuning with chain-of-thought traces reorganized into <ANA> (observation analysis) and <MEM> (memory analysis) sections, yielding consistent F1 gains over standard CoT fine-tuning and outperforming few-shot prompting that already demonstrates the preferred pattern.

Load-bearing premise

The FineRob benchmark's correct answers and its multiple-choice wrong answers are generated automatically, without human verification, so if those labels are noisy or the distractors are not genuinely plausible, the measured accuracy gains of OM-CoT might not reflect real behavior-simulation ability.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If OM-CoT's gains hold, behavior simulation should be treated as a reasoning task that can be improved through fine-tuning, not just through larger base models.
  • Because training and test users do not overlap, the learned observation-and-memory reasoning pattern transfers to users the model has never seen.
  • Ablations show role history is the dominant prompt component, so systems that compress or retrieve the right history will matter more than persona descriptions.
  • Performance peaks around 30 recent behaviors and declines with more, suggesting noise from long histories is a real cost in simulation.
  • The token ablation indicates sub-tasks need different balances, implying specialized prompting or routing by behavior element could extract further gains.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The <ANA>/<MEM> split is a generic inductive bias for personalization; the same two-token structure could be applied to recommendation or content generation tasks where the model must combine a current query with a user's history.
  • The oracle CoT generation makes OM-CoT dependent on a strong teacher model; as teachers improve or become cheaper, the method's ceiling likely rises, which is testable.
  • The decline beyond 30 history entries suggests a recency prior is being learned; an explicit recency-weighting mechanism might do even better than the fixed window.
  • Because the benchmark is multiple-choice with similarity-sampled distractors, gains may partly reflect discrimination between near-synonymous options rather than open-ended generation; extending FineRob to generative evaluation would clarify what the structured reasoning actually buys.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces FineRob, a new multilingual benchmark for fine-grained behavior simulation on social media, in which each user behavior is decomposed into three elements (object, type, content) and converted into multiple-choice QA records derived from the real timelines of 1,866 users on Twitter, Reddit, and Zhihu. The authors analyze zero-shot CoT reasoning and identify two patterns ('role stereotype' and 'observation and memory'), then propose OM-CoT, a fine-tuning method that inserts special tokens <ANA> and <MEM> to structure reasoning into observation analysis and memory analysis. Experiments with nine LLMs and fine-tuning on two open-source models report consistent gains for OM-CoT over zero-shot, few-shot, and standard CoT fine-tuning, along with ablations on prompt components, history size, and the two special tokens.

Significance. If the benchmark and the method hold up, this is a useful contribution: FineRob is one of the first real-user, multi-platform, fine-grained behavior simulation datasets with a disjoint-user train/test split, and OM-CoT is a simple, reproducible fine-tuning recipe that shows consistent improvements across models and sub-tasks. The authors release code and data, and the ablations (Tables 5 and 6) give insight into which prompt components matter. However, the central claim that OM-CoT improves genuine behavior simulation depends on two untested assumptions: that the automatically constructed multiple-choice distractors are not gameable by similarity matching, and that the oracle CoT used for training does not leak the answer. The reported zero standard deviations and the test-set-based choice of history window further weaken the empirical case.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2] The distractor construction for object and content options selects negatives by sentence-embedding similarity to the correct answer, with sentiment alignment. This creates a test distribution in which the correct option may be the candidate most similar to the user's past behaviors, exactly the signal that OM-CoT's <MEM> token is trained to exploit (Section 4.2, Table 5). No retrieval baseline is reported, and no ablation varies the distractor construction. If a simple history-similarity retriever already achieves high accuracy, or if OM-CoT's advantage shrinks when distractors are randomly sampled, the claimed behavior-simulation ability would not be established. Please add a retrieval baseline (e.g., selecting the option with maximum embedding similarity to the user's recent history) and a distractor-robustness check (e.g., random distractors vs. current similar-sentiment distractors) to show that the benchmark requires reasoning beyond similarity matching.
  2. [Section 4.2] Oracle CoT generation includes the correct answer in the input prompt, and the paper states that the prompt was 'carefully adjusted' to avoid revealing the answer, but no verification is provided. If the generated CoT text contains answer-specific hints (e.g., restating the correct option's wording), the SFT training would teach the model to reproduce a pattern that is correlated with the answer, and OM-CoT's gains over Std-CoT could reflect this leakage rather than a generalizable reasoning skill. Please quantify leakage (e.g., train a classifier to predict the answer from the CoT text alone, or manually audit a random sample) and, ideally, validate on a fresh set of users whose oracle CoTs are generated without any answer information.
  3. [Tables 3 and 4] Many scores are reported with zero standard deviation (e.g., Table 4: Mistral-7b std-CoT-FT Object 31.56±0.0, Type 31.40±0.0, Twitter Object 55.76±0.0; Solar-10.7b OM-CoT-FT several entries ±0.0). Since inference uses sampling with temperature 0.1 and results are averaged over three trials, exact zeros across 17.6k test items are surprising and undermine confidence in the reported differences. Please clarify whether decoding is actually deterministic for these entries or provide the full distribution (e.g., per-trial scores or confidence intervals) so that the significance of the OM-CoT gains can be assessed.
  4. [Section 5.3, Figure 5] The history window size (30) is chosen after evaluating performance on the Twitter test set across sizes from 10 to all entries, and the main results in Table 4 use this chosen value on the same test set. This is test-set tuning and can inflate the reported performance. Please hold out a validation split for selecting the history window and other hyperparameters, or report the sensitivity of the Table 4 conclusions to the window size.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.1] There are several typos and grammatical issues, e.g., 'simulat' in the prompt description, 'The last two models is specialize for Chinese context', and 'Mistrail-7b' in Table 5. A careful proofread is needed.
  2. [Section 3.2] The paper says 'randomly sample three options' for distractors, but does not state the total number of options per question (presumably four). Please make the option count explicit for each behavior element.
  3. [Section 4.1] The quantitative analysis in Figure 4 uses similarity between CoT reasoning text and prompt parts, but the methodology (e.g., which similarity measure, how the similarity intervals are defined) is not described. Please clarify so the reader can interpret the claimed correlation.
  4. [Table 2] The behavior type taxonomy is central to the dataset, but the table does not indicate the number of instances per type or how types are balanced across platforms. A brief distributional summary would help assess potential biases.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; OM-CoT is a standard SFT method evaluated on a disjoint-user test split, and its training signal does not leak into inference.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is not circular. FineRob is constructed from real user timelines with behaviors decomposed into object/type/content, and the train/test split is disjoint by user, so the test users' identities and behaviors are not seen during fine-tuning. OM-CoT's oracle CoT generation does include the correct answer in the training prompt (Sec. 4.2), but this is a standard distillation setup: the oracle label is used only to produce supervision text for SFT, and at evaluation time the model receives no answer and must select among options itself. The comparison against zero-shot, few-shot, and standard-CoT fine-tuning isolates the effect of the <ANA>/<MEM> structure rather than the presence of CoT supervision. The choice to emphasize observation-and-memory reasoning is motivated by a preliminary analysis of model outputs on the same benchmark, which is a design decision, not a derivation that reduces to the benchmark's labels. The concern that distractor sampling by sentence-embedding similarity with sentiment alignment (Sec. 3.2) may make the task partly solvable by surface-similarity retrieval is a legitimate benchmark-validity risk, but it is not a circular step in the paper's argument: the method does not fit a parameter to the test labels, and the claimed improvements are empirical results on held-out users rather than identities derived from the benchmark construction. No load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems appear. Therefore no circular step meets the evidentiary bar, and the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claims rest on several hand-chosen thresholds and unvalidated assumptions about dataset quality and reasoning taxonomies. No external benchmarks are used to validate the dataset or the method.

free parameters (4)
  • history window size = 30
    Number of recent behavior entries used as input; chosen via a small sweep shown in Figure 5, not theoretically derived.
  • LoRA hyperparameters = alpha=1.0, beta=0.025
    LoRA configuration; 'beta' likely a typo for rank or scaling. Chosen by hand, not justified.
  • user activity threshold = 70
    Filtering criterion for user selection; arbitrary cutoff.
  • distractor selection count = 3 candidates
    Number and construction of negative options in multiple-choice; no analysis of difficulty calibration.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Behavior can be decomposed into object, type, and content.
    Used throughout the dataset design; not empirically validated as exhaustive or natural.
  • domain assumption Multiple-choice accuracy on the constructed options measures behavior simulation ability.
    Evaluation protocol assumes that selecting the true behavior among generated options reflects the model's behavioral prediction quality.
  • ad hoc to paper GPT-4o-generated oracle CoT is high-quality and does not leak the correct answer into the reasoning text.
    Training data quality relies on this assumption; no human audit of the generated CoTs is reported.
  • domain assumption The two identified reasoning patterns ('role stereotype' and 'observation and memory') are the dominant modes.
    Based on qualitative analysis and similarity measurements (Figure 4); no systematic taxonomy validation or inter-annotator agreement.
invented entities (2)
  • <ANA> and <MEM> special tokens
    purpose: Structure the CoT into observation analysis and memory analysis during fine-tuning.
    New formatting tokens introduced for the OM-CoT method; their effectiveness is demonstrated only on the authors' benchmark.
  • Two reasoning patterns (role stereotype, observation and memory)
    purpose: Conceptual categories used to motivate the method and explain model behavior.
    Patterns are identified from the authors' own experiments; no external validation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fine-Grained Behavior Simulation with Role-Playing Large Language Model on Social Media." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FWLJF2SW

@misc{pith2026241203148,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fine-Grained Behavior Simulation with Role-Playing Large Language Model on Social Media},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FWLJF2SW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03148}
}
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in role-playing tasks. However, there is limited research on whether LLMs can accurately simulate user behavior in real-world scenarios, such as social media. This requires models to effectively analyze a user's history and simulate their role. In this paper, we introduce \textbf{FineRob}, a novel fine-grained behavior simulation dataset. We collect the complete behavioral history of 1,866 distinct users across three social media platforms. Each behavior is decomposed into three fine-grained elements: object, type, and content, resulting in 78.6k QA records. Based on FineRob, we identify two dominant reasoning patterns in LLMs' behavior simulation processes and propose the \textbf{OM-CoT} fine-tuning method to enhance the capability. Through comprehensive experiments, we conduct an in-depth analysis of key factors of behavior simulation and also demonstrate the effectiveness of OM-CoT approach\footnote{Code and dataset are available at \url{https://github.com/linkseed18612254945/FineRob}}

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03148 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of FineRob, requires LLM to simulat behavior choices that align with a role’s profile and historical data. We decompose a complete behavior record into three fine-grained components: selecting the recipient of the action, determining the action type, and specifying the behavior details. Specifically, we introduce the FineRob (Fine-Grained Role Behavior) dataset, a novel benchmark for role-behavior simulat… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of our work, The left and middle sections of the figure illustrate the process of constructing the FineRob dataset. The right section shows how OM-COT-FineTune training details, including data augmentation, reorganize with special tokens and SFT training. broad, macro-level decisions in fictional contexts. In contrast, our research focus on the LLMs’ capacity to simulate fine-grained, micro-level behaviors … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Two typical patterns of COT reasoning for behavior simulation. The "Role Stereotype" pattern focus on role analysis. The "Observation and Memory" pattern simulats future behavior by considering the relationship between the character’s history and observed options. 4 Methodology 4.1 Preliminary Analysis We conduct preliminary experiments using a zero-shot Chain of Thought (CoT) approach. Our goal is to understand the… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Analysis of simulation accuracy changes across different similarity levels between reasoning and various parts of the prompt. The results are generated using ChatGPT-3.5-turbo-0125 on the Twitter test set, with the average F1-score calculated across three behavior elem…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The relationship between input historical behavior size and the accuracy of simulating fine-grained behavior elements. The figure presents the results of three methods on the Twitter dataset. RQ2: Does adding more user history input improve the accuracy of behavior sim…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    CoRR abs/2402.10618 (2024)

    Enhancing role-playing systems through aggressive queries: Evaluation and improvement. CoRR abs/2402.10618 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    In: ACL (Findings)

    Ahn, J., Lee, T., Lim, J., Kim, J., Yun, S., Lee, H., Kim, G.: Timechara: Evaluating point-in- time character hallucination of role-playing large language models. In: ACL (Findings). pp. 3291–3325. Association for Computational Linguistics (2024) 14 Kun Li, Chenwei Dai et al Table 8. An example of User info inf FineRob Dataset A behavior content QA record...

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    In: ICML

    Bourgin, D.D., Peterson, J.C., Reichman, D., Russell, S.J., Griffiths, T.L.: Cognitive model priors for predicting human decisions. In: ICML. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 97, pp. 5133–5141. PMLR (2019)

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    CoRR abs/2406.11683 (2024)

    Chen, J., Zhu, X., Yang, C., Shi, C., Xi, Y ., Zhang, Y ., Wang, J., Pu, J., Zhang, R., Yang, Y ., Feng, T.: Hollmwood: Unleashing the creativity of large language models in screenwriting via role playing. CoRR abs/2406.11683 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    In: EMNLP (Findings)

    Chen, N., Wang, Y ., Jiang, H., Cai, D., Li, Y ., Chen, Z., Wang, L., Li, J.: Large language models meet harry potter: A dataset for aligning dialogue agents with characters. In: EMNLP (Findings). pp. 8506–8520. Association for Computational Linguistics (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    In: ICLR (Poster)

    Dinan, E., Roller, S., Shuster, K., Fan, A., Auli, M., Weston, J.: Wizard of wikipedia: Knowledge-powered conversational agents. In: ICLR (Poster). OpenReview.net (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    CoRR abs/2407.21783 (2024)

    Dubey, A., Jauhri, A., Pandey, A., Kadian, A., Al-Dahle, A., Letman, A., Mathur, A., Schelten, A., Yang, A., Fan, A., Goyal, A., Hartshorn, A., Yang, A., Mitra, A., Sravankumar, A., Korenev, A., Hinsvark, A., Rao, A., Zhang, A., Rodriguez, A., Gregerson, A., Spataru, A., Rozière, B., Biron, B., Tang, B., Chern, B., Caucheteux, C., Nayak, C., Bi, C., Marra...

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    CoRR abs/2405.13362 (2024)

    Ebrat, D., Rueda, L.: Lusifer: Llm-based user simulated feedback environment for online recommender systems. CoRR abs/2405.13362 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    In: ACL (1)

    Gao, J., Lian, Y ., Zhou, Z., Fu, Y ., Wang, B.: Livechat: A large-scale personalized dialogue dataset automatically constructed from live streaming. In: ACL (1). pp. 15387–15405. Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    CoRR abs/2308.05884 (2023)

    Gosling, T., Dale, A., Zheng, Y .: PIPPA: A partially synthetic conversational dataset. CoRR abs/2308.05884 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    In: ICLR

    Hu, E.J., Shen, Y ., Wallis, P., Allen-Zhu, Z., Li, Y ., Wang, S., Wang, L., Chen, W.: Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. In: ICLR. OpenReview.net (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    CoRRabs/2310.06825 (2023)

    Jiang, A.Q., Sablayrolles, A., Mensch, A., Bamford, C., Chaplot, D.S., de Las Casas, D., Bressand, F., Lengyel, G., Lample, G., Saulnier, L., Lavaud, L.R., Lachaux, M., Stock, P., Scao, T.L., Lavril, T., Wang, T., Lacroix, T., Sayed, W.E.: Mistral 7b. CoRRabs/2310.06825 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Business horizons 53(1), 59–68 (2010)

    Kaplan, A.M., Haenlein, M.: Users of the world, unite! the challenges and opportunities of social media. Business horizons 53(1), 59–68 (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    CoRR abs/2312.15166 (2023)

    Kim, D., Park, C., Kim, S., Lee, W., Song, W., Kim, Y ., Kim, H., Kim, Y ., Lee, H., Kim, J., Ahn, C., Yang, S., Lee, S., Park, H., Gim, G., Cha, M., Lee, H., Kim, S.: SOLAR 10.7b: Scaling large language models with simple yet effective depth up-scaling. CoRR abs/2312.15166 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    In: ACL (1)

    Liu, S., Cho, H., Freedman, M., Ma, X., May, J.: RECAP: retrieval-enhanced context-aware prefix encoder for personalized dialogue response generation. In: ACL (1). pp. 8404–8419. Association for Computational Linguistics (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    In: ACL (1)

    Lu, K., Yu, B., Zhou, C., Zhou, J.: Large language models are superpositions of all characters: Attaining arbitrary role-play via self-alignment. In: ACL (1). pp. 7828–7840. Association for Computational Linguistics (2024) 16 Kun Li, Chenwei Dai et al

    2024

  9. [17]

    In: HLT-NAACL

    Mostafazadeh, N., Chambers, N., He, X., Parikh, D., Batra, D., Vanderwende, L., Kohli, P., Allen, J.F.: A corpus and cloze evaluation for deeper understanding of commonsense stories. In: HLT-NAACL. pp. 839–849. The Association for Computational Linguistics (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    In: UIST

    Park, J.S., O’Brien, J.C., Cai, C.J., Morris, M.R., Liang, P., Bernstein, M.S.: Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior. In: UIST. pp. 2:1–2:22. ACM (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    In: ACL (1)

    Salemi, A., Mysore, S., Bendersky, M., Zamani, H.: Lamp: When large language models meet personalization. In: ACL (1). pp. 7370–7392. Association for Computational Linguistics (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Current opinion in psychology 31, 1–6 (2020)

    Schlosser, A.E.: Self-disclosure versus self-presentation on social media. Current opinion in psychology 31, 1–6 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    In: EMNLP

    Shao, Y ., Li, L., Dai, J., Qiu, X.: Character-llm: A trainable agent for role-playing. In: EMNLP. pp. 13153–13187. Association for Computational Linguistics (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.02552 (2023)

    Wang, L., Zhang, J., Yang, H., Chen, Z., Tang, J., Zhang, Z., Chen, X., Lin, Y ., Song, R., Zhao, W.X., et al.: User behavior simulation with large language model based agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.02552 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    In: LREC/COLING

    Wang, X., Dai, H., Gao, S., Li, P.: Characteristic AI agents via large language models. In: LREC/COLING. pp. 3016–3027. ELRA and ICCL (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    In: EMNLP (Demos)

    Wang, Z., Chiu, Y ., Chiu, Y .C.: Humanoid agents: Platform for simulating human-like genera- tive agents. In: EMNLP (Demos). pp. 167–176. Association for Computational Linguistics (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Xu, R., Wang, X., Chen, J., Yuan, S., Yuan, X., Liang, J., Chen, Z., Dong, X., Xiao, Y .: Character is destiny: Can large language models simulate persona-driven decisions in role- playing? CoRR abs/2404.12138 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    CoRR abs/2309.10305 (2023)

    Yang, A., Xiao, B., Wang, B., Zhang, B., Bian, C., Yin, C., Lv, C., Pan, D., Wang, D., Yan, D., Yang, F., Deng, F., Wang, F., Liu, F., Ai, G., Dong, G., Zhao, H., Xu, H., Sun, H., Zhang, H., Liu, H., Ji, J., Xie, J., Dai, J., Fang, K., Su, L., Song, L., Liu, L., Ru, L., Ma, L....

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Young, A., Chen, B., Li, C., Huang, C., Zhang, G., Zhang, G., Li, H., Zhu, J., Chen, J., Chang, J., et al.: Yi: Open foundation models by 01. ai. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04652 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    CoRR abs/2402.13717 (2024)

    Yu, X., Luo, T., Wei, Y ., Lei, F., Huang, Y ., Peng, H., Zhu, L.: Neeko: Leveraging dynamic lora for efficient multi-character role-playing agent. CoRR abs/2402.13717 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    In: EACL (Demonstrations)

    Zhao, R., Zhang, W., Li, J., Zhu, L., Li, Y ., He, Y ., Gui, L.: Narrativeplay: Interactive narra- tive understanding. In: EACL (Demonstrations). pp. 82–93. Association for Computational Linguistics (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    In: Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (V olume 3: System Demon- strations)

    Zheng, Y ., Zhang, R., Zhang, J., Ye, Y ., Luo, Z., Feng, Z., Ma, Y .: Llamafactory: Uni- fied efficient fine-tuning of 100+ language models. In: Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (V olume 3: System Demon- strations). Assoc...

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    CoRR abs/1901.09672 (2019)

    Zheng, Y ., Chen, G., Huang, M., Liu, S., Zhu, X.: Personalized dialogue generation with diversified traits. CoRR abs/1901.09672 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    CoRR abs/2311.16832 (2023)

    Zhou, J., Chen, Z., Wan, D., Wen, B., Song, Y ., Yu, J., Huang, Y ., Peng, L., Yang, J., Xiao, X., Sabour, S., Zhang, X., Hou, W., Zhang, Y ., Dong, Y ., Tang, J., Huang, M.: Character- glm: Customizing chinese conversational AI characters with large language models. CoRR abs/...

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.