In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have achieved breakthrough progress in many dialogue generation tasks. However, their lack of emotion and fine-grained role awareness limits the model’s ability to provide personalized and diverse interactions further. Current methods face high costs in collecting high-quality annotated data for scenarios such as role-playing, and traditional human alignment methods are difficult to deploy due to the inherent diversity of model behavior in role-playing scenarios. Inspired by the alignment of models for safety behaviors through RLHF (Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback), in this paper, we revisit model role-playing behavior from the perspective of persona alignment and propose a novel annotation-free framework named Persona-Aware Contrastive Learning (PCL) to align LLMs’ behavior during role-playing, enhancing the model’s role consistency. Specifically, we first design a role chain method to encourage the model to self-question based on the role characteristics and dialogue context to adjust personality consistency. Then, we further enhance the model’s role-playing strategy through iterative adversarial modeling between the use of role characteristics and not. Experiments on both black-box and white-box LLMs show that LLMs equipped with PCL significantly outperform vanilla LLMs under automatic evaluation methods (CharEval & GPT-4) and human expert evaluation.

As large language models (LLMs) grow more capable, they face increasingly diverse and complex tasks, making reliable evaluation challenging. The paradigm of LLMs as judges has emerged as a scalable solution, yet prior work primarily focuses on simple settings. Their reliability in complex tasks—where multi-faceted rubrics, unstructured reference answers, and nuanced criteria are critical—remains understudied. In this paper, we constructed ComplexEval Bench, a challenge benchmark designed to systematically expose and quantify Auxiliary Information Induced Biases. We systematically investigated and validated 6 previously unexplored biases across 12 basic and 3 advanced scenarios. Key findings reveal: (1) all evaluated models exhibit significant susceptibility to these biases, with bias magnitude scaling with task complexity; (2) notably, Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) show paradoxical vulnerability. Our in-depth analysis offers crucial insights for improving the accuracy and verifiability of evaluation signals, paving the way for more general and robust evaluation models.