Persona-based dialogue systems are usually conditioned on speaker biography, but dialogues involve at least two participants, and who has access to whose biography can vary across training, inference, and evaluation. Prior work often neglected these aspects, obscuring mechanisms that only appear when biography visibility is toggled separately across training, inference, and evaluation, a three-stage factorisation that prior work has largely treated as a single factor. We study this factorisation on a dataset of dialogues paired with speaker’s biographies, varying whether the target and interlocutor speakers see each other’s biographies during training and inference, and using an LLM as a judge to perform author identification. We find that (i) training-time visibility, more than inference-time visibility, determines whether models express persona traits through dialogue or fall back on copying biographical text (a known problem/phenomenon in persona-based generation); (ii) models trained with interlocutor-biography visibility copy less target-biographical text than models trained without it, while changing visibility only at inference time has a less consistent effect; and (iii) under asymmetric disclosure, where only the interlocutor sees the target biography, target content leaks into interlocutor turns more often, and dialogues containing such traces are easier for the judge to identify, especially when interlocutor turns are visible. These results suggest that biography leakage into generated turns is an artefact of how interlocutor visibility is configured across training and inference, and separating the three stages is necessary.

Endowing dialogue agents with persona information has proven to significantly improve the consistency and diversity of their generations. While much focus has been placed on aligning dialogues with provided personas, the adaptation to the interlocutor’s profile remains largely underexplored. In this work, we investigate three key aspects: (1) a model’s ability to align responses with both the provided persona and the interlocutor’s; (2) its robustness when dealing with familiar versus unfamiliar interlocutors and topics, and (3) the impact of additional fine-tuning on specific persona-based dialogues. We evaluate dialogues generated with diverse speaker pairings and topics, framing the evaluation as an author identification task and employing both LLM-as-a-judge and human evaluations. By systematically masking or disclosing information about interlocutor, we assess its impact on dialogue generation. Results show that access to the interlocutor’s persona improves the recognition of the target speaker, while masking it does the opposite. Although models generalise well across topics, they struggle with unfamiliar interlocutors. Finally, we found that in zero-shot settings, LLMs often copy biographical details, facilitating identification but trivialising the task.

Providing dialogue agents with a profile representation can improve their consistency and coherence, leading to better conversations. However, current profile-based dialogue datasets for training such agents contain either explicit profile representations that are simple and dialogue-specific, or implicit representations that are difficult to collect. In this work, we introduce the PRODIGy (PROfile-based DIalogue Generation) dataset, which brings diverse representations together, providing a more comprehensive profile dimension set for each speaker. This resource comprises more than 20k dialogues, sourced from movie scripts, aligned with speaker representations such as communication style, biography, personality and gender. Initial experiments with diverse baselines show that providing generative language models with these aspects of a profile, both separately and jointly, enhances models’ performance. This improvement holds true in both in-domain and cross-domain settings, for both fine-tuned and instruction-based LLMs.

Automatic methods for generating and gathering linguistic data have proven effective for fine-tuning Language Models (LMs) in languages less resourced than English. Still, while there has been emphasis on data quantity, less attention has been given to its quality. In this work, we investigate the impact of human intervention on machine-generated data when fine-tuning dialogical models. In particular, we study (1) whether post-edited dialogues exhibit higher perceived quality compared to the originals that were automatically generated; (2) whether fine-tuning with post-edited dialogues results in noticeable differences in the generated outputs; and (3) whether post-edited dialogues influence the outcomes when considering the parameter size of the LMs. To this end we created HED-IT, a large-scale dataset where machine-generated dialogues are paired with the version post-edited by humans. Using both the edited and unedited portions of HED-IT, we fine-tuned three different sizes of an LM. Results from both human and automatic evaluation show that the different quality of training data is clearly perceived and it has an impact also on the models trained on such data. Additionally, our findings indicate that larger models are less sensitive to data quality, whereas this has a crucial impact on smaller models. These results enhance our comprehension of the impact of human intervention on training data in the development of high-quality LMs.