REVIEW 1 cited by
Dynamic benchmarking framework for LLM-based conversational data capture
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
Dynamic benchmarking framework for LLM-based conversational data capture
read the original abstract
The rapid evolution of large language models (LLMs) has transformed conversational agents, enabling complex human-machine interactions. However, evaluation frameworks often focus on single tasks, failing to capture the dynamic nature of multi-turn dialogues. This paper introduces a dynamic benchmarking framework to assess LLM-based conversational agents through interactions with synthetic users. The framework integrates generative agent simulation to evaluate performance on key dimensions: information extraction, context awareness, and adaptive engagement. By simulating various aspects of user behavior, our work provides a scalable, automated, and flexible benchmarking approach. Experimental evaluation - within a loan application use case - demonstrates the framework's effectiveness under one-shot and few-shot extraction conditions. Results show that adaptive strategies improve data extraction accuracy, especially when handling ambiguous responses. Future work will extend its applicability to broader domains and incorporate additional metrics (e.g., conversational coherence, user engagement). This study contributes a structured, scalable approach to evaluating LLM-based conversational agents, facilitating real-world deployment.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
ProactiveEval: A Unified Evaluation Framework for Proactive Dialogue Agents
A unified evaluation framework for proactive dialogue agents, built with 328 synthetic environments across six domains, shows that thinking modes improve target planning but not dialogue guidance in a 22-model comparison.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.