In multi-turn dialogues, large language models face a critical challenge of ensuring coherence while adapting to user-specific information.. This study introduces the persona knowledge gap, the discrepancy between a model’s internal understanding and the knowledge required for coherent, personalized conversations. While prior research has recognized these gaps, computational methods for their identification and resolution remain underexplored. We propose Conversation Preference Elicitation and Recommendation (CPER), a novel framework that dynamically detects and resolves persona knowledge gaps using intrinsic uncertainty quantification and feedback-driven refinement. CPER consists of three key modules: a Contextual Understanding Module for preference extraction, a Dynamic Feedback Module for measuring uncertainty and refining persona alignment, and a Persona-Driven Response Generation module for adapting responses based on accumulated user context. We evaluate CPER on two real-world datasets: CCPE-M for preferential movie recommendations and ESConv for mental health support. Using A/B testing, human evaluators preferred CPER’s responses 42% more often than baseline models in CCPE-M and 27% more often in ESConv. A qualitative human evaluation confirms that CPER’s responses are preferred for maintaining contextual relevance and coherence, particularly in longer (12+ turn) conversations.

When examining reviews of research papers, we can distinguish between two hypothetical referees: the maximally lenient referee who accepts any paper with a vacuous review and the maximally strict one who rejects any paper with an overly pedantic review. Clearly, both are of no practical value. Our interest is in a referee who makes a balanced judgement and provides a review abiding by the guidelines. In this paper, we present a case study of automatic correction of an existing machine-generated or human review. The AutoRef\ system implements an iterative approach that progressively “refines” a review by attempting to make it more compliant with pre-defined requirements of a “good” review. It implements the following steps: (1) Translate the review requirements into a specification in natural language, of “yes/no” questions; (2) Given a (paper,review) pair, extract answers to the questions; (3) Use the results in (2) to generate a new review; and (4) Return to Step (2) with the paper and the new review. Here, (2) and (3) are implemented by large language model (LLM) based agents. We present a case study using papers and reviews made available for the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). Our initial empirical results suggest that AutoRef\ progressively improves the compliance of the generated reviews to the specification. Currently designed specification makes AutoRef\ progressively generate reviews which are stricter, making the decisions more inclined towards “rejections”. This demonstrates the applicability of $AutoRef $ for: (1) The progressive correction of overly lenient reviews, being useful for referees and meta-reviewers; and (2) The generation of progressively stricter reviews for a paper, starting from a vacuous review (“Great paper. Accept.”), facilitating authors when trying to assess weaknesses in their papers.