The DOI matches its DataCite record.
On Overcoming Miscalibrated Conversational Priors in LLM-based Chatbots
Open accessAbstract
We explore the use of Large Language Model (LLM-based) chatbots to power recommender systems. We observe that the chatbots respond poorly when they encounter under-specified requests (e.g., they make incorrect assumptions, hedge with a long response, or refuse to answer). We conjecture that such miscalibrated response tendencies (i.e., conversational priors) can be attributed to LLM fine-tuning using annotators -- single-turn annotations may not capture multi-turn conversation utility, and the annotators' preferences may not even be representative of users interacting with a recommender system. We first analyze public LLM chat logs to conclude that query under-specification is common. Next, we study synthetic recommendation problems with configurable latent item utilities and frame them as Partially Observed Decision Processes (PODP). We find that pre-trained LLMs can be sub-optimal for PODPs and derive better policies that clarify under-specified queries when appropriate. Then, we re-calibrate LLMs by prompting them with learned control messages to approximate the improved policy. Finally, we show empirically that our lightweight learning approach effectively uses logged conversation data to re-calibrate the response strategies of LLM-based chatbots for recommendation tasks.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Underspecification in user instructions occurs frequently in LLM conversation logs.
“Although analysis of LLM conversation logs has confirmed that underspecification occurs frequently in user instructions”
From LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation (2025) · cites this paper as [27]
Herlihy et al. identified common response patterns such as hedging, refusal, clarification, and interrogation when underspecified queries are presented to conversational LLM systems.
“Herlihy et al. [27] identified common response patterns such as hedging, refusal, clarification, and interrogation when underspecified queries are presented to conversational LLM systems, and proposed mechanisms to recover from them.”
From LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation (2025) · cites this paper as [27]
Herlihy et al. proposed mechanisms to recover from those response patterns.
“Herlihy et al. [27] identified common response patterns such as hedging, refusal, clarification, and interrogation when underspecified queries are presented to conversational LLM systems, and proposed mechanisms to recover from them.”
From LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation (2025) · cites this paper as [27]
Herlihy et al. [27] defined seven turn categories for LLM responses and classified them using LLM, uncovering that GPT-4 prefers answering directly even when the query is underspecified.
“Herlihy et al. [27] defined seven turn categories for LLM responses and classified them using LLM, uncovering that GPT-4 prefers answering directly even when the query is underspecified.”
From LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation (2025) · cites this paper as Herlihy et al. [27]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation
Laban, P., Hayashi, H., Zhou, Y., & Neville, J. (2025) · arXiv · Cited by 419
“In fact, prior work has found that minor and severe underspecification appear in equal proportions in public LLM chat logs [27].”
InfluentialSelf-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Herlihy, C., Neville, J., Schnabel, T., & Swaminathan, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- Microsoft (United States) (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2406.01633
- OpenAlex
- W4399404882
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › AI in Service Interactions
- Keywords
- LLM-based chatbots, calibration error, recommender systems, multi-turn dialogue, LLM fine-tuning, chat logs
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
