Who's Asking? Evaluating LLM Robustness to Inquiry Personas in Factual Question Answering

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.12925v1
• Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2025 18:59:15 GMT
• Title: Who's Asking? Evaluating LLM Robustness to Inquiry Personas in Factual Question Answering
• Abstract summary: We evaluate robustness to inquiry personas, i.e. user profiles that convey attributes like identity, expertise, or belief.<n>We find that such cues can meaningfully alter QA accuracy and trigger failure modes such as refusals, hallucinated limitations, and role confusion.
• Score: 15.641627064295237
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) should answer factual questions truthfully, grounded in objective knowledge, regardless of user context such as self-disclosed personal information, or system personalization. In this paper, we present the first systematic evaluation of LLM robustness to inquiry personas, i.e. user profiles that convey attributes like identity, expertise, or belief. While prior work has primarily focused on adversarial inputs or distractors for robustness testing, we evaluate plausible, human-centered inquiry persona cues that users disclose in real-world interactions. We find that such cues can meaningfully alter QA accuracy and trigger failure modes such as refusals, hallucinated limitations, and role confusion. These effects highlight how model sensitivity to user framing can compromise factual reliability, and position inquiry persona testing as an effective tool for robustness evaluation.

Related papers

• Preference-Aware Rubric Learning for Personalized Evaluation [59.539429430690156]
  Existing evaluation methods fail to capture user-specific preferences embedded in long-term interaction histories.<n>We propose Personalized Evaluation as Learning, a paradigm that formulates personalized evaluation as a learning problem rather than a static judgment.<n>Experiments show that PARL consistently induces high-fidelity rubrics that reliably identify user-aligned responses and generalize across users.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-29T17:00:55Z)
• Personalization Increases Affective Alignment but Has Role-Dependent Effects on Epistemic Independence in LLMs [2.1198879079315573]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are prone to sycophantic behavior, uncritically conforming to user beliefs.<n>We present a rigorous evaluation of personalization's impact on LLM sycophancy across nine frontier models and five benchmark datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-03T19:04:03Z)
• What Persona Are We Missing? Identifying Unknown Relevant Personas for Faithful User Simulation [16.797868883640255]
  Existing user simulations, where models generate user-like responses in dialogue, often lack verification that sufficient user personas are provided.<n>This work explores the task of identifying relevant but unknown personas of the simulation target for a given simulation context.<n>We introduce PICQ, a novel dataset of context-aware choice questions, annotated with unknown personas.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-03T16:22:00Z)
• Personalized Reasoning: Just-In-Time Personalization and Why LLMs Fail At It [81.50711040539566]
  Current large language model (LLM) development treats task-solving and preference alignment as separate challenges.<n>We introduce PREFDISCO, an evaluation methodology that transforms static benchmarks into interactive personalization tasks.<n>Our framework creates scenarios where identical questions require different reasoning chains depending on user context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T18:55:28Z)
• Teaching Language Models To Gather Information Proactively [53.85419549904644]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly expected to function as collaborative partners.<n>In this work, we introduce a new task paradigm: proactive information gathering.<n>We design a scalable framework that generates partially specified, real-world tasks, masking key information.<n>Within this setup, our core innovation is a reinforcement finetuning strategy that rewards questions that elicit genuinely new, implicit user information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-28T23:50:09Z)
• Harnessing RLHF for Robust Unanswerability Recognition and Trustworthy Response Generation in LLMs [2.217239320172707]
  This paper introduces Self-Aware LLM for Unanswerability (SALU), a novel approach that deeply integrates unanswerability detection directly within the generative process.<n>SALU is trained using a multi-task learning framework for both standard Question Answering (QA) and explicit abstention generation for unanswerable queries.<n>It consistently outperforms strong baselines, including hybrid LLM-classifier systems, in overall accuracy for correctly answering or abstaining from questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-22T18:44:18Z)
• Spotting Out-of-Character Behavior: Atomic-Level Evaluation of Persona Fidelity in Open-Ended Generation [16.76995815742803]
  We propose an atomic-level evaluation framework that quantifies persona fidelity at a finer granularity.<n>Our three key metrics measure the degree of persona alignment and consistency within and across generations.<n>By analyzing persona fidelity across diverse tasks and personality types, we reveal how task structure and persona desirability influence model adaptability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-24T06:33:10Z)
• PersonaFeedback: A Large-scale Human-annotated Benchmark For Personalization [25.45861816665351]
  We introduce PersonaFeedback, a new benchmark that directly evaluates LLMs' ability to provide personalized responses.<n>Unlike existing benchmarks that require models to infer implicit user personas from historical interactions, PersonaFeedback decouples persona inference from personalization.<n> PersonaFeedback consists of 8298 human-annotated test cases, which are categorized into easy, medium, and hard tiers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-15T17:19:19Z)
• Fostering Appropriate Reliance on Large Language Models: The Role of Explanations, Sources, and Inconsistencies [66.30619782227173]
  Large language models (LLMs) can produce erroneous responses that sound fluent and convincing.<n>We identify several features of LLM responses that shape users' reliance.<n>We find that explanations increase reliance on both correct and incorrect responses.<n>We observe less reliance on incorrect responses when sources are provided or when explanations exhibit inconsistencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-12T16:35:41Z)
• MisinfoEval: Generative AI in the Era of "Alternative Facts" [50.069577397751175]
  We introduce a framework for generating and evaluating large language model (LLM) based misinformation interventions. We present (1) an experiment with a simulated social media environment to measure effectiveness of misinformation interventions, and (2) a second experiment with personalized explanations tailored to the demographics and beliefs of users. Our findings confirm that LLM-based interventions are highly effective at correcting user behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-13T18:16:50Z)
• Ranking Generated Answers: On the Agreement of Retrieval Models with Humans on Consumer Health Questions [25.158868133182025]
  We present a method for evaluating the output of generative large language models (LLMs)<n>We use ranking models trained on annotated document collections as a substitute for explicit relevance.<n>In a user study, our method correlates with the preferences of a human expert.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-19T09:27:45Z)
• DePrompt: Desensitization and Evaluation of Personal Identifiable Information in Large Language Model Prompts [11.883785681042593]
  DePrompt is a desensitization protection and effectiveness evaluation framework for prompt. We integrate contextual attributes to define privacy types, achieving high-precision PII entity identification. Our framework is adaptable to prompts and can be extended to text usability-dependent scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-16T02:38:25Z)
• Evaluating Large Language Models with Psychometrics [59.821829073478376]
  This paper offers a comprehensive benchmark for quantifying psychological constructs of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>Our work identifies five key psychological constructs -- personality, values, emotional intelligence, theory of mind, and self-efficacy -- assessed through a suite of 13 datasets.<n>We uncover significant discrepancies between LLMs' self-reported traits and their response patterns in real-world scenarios, revealing complexities in their behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T16:09:08Z)
• Rethinking the Evaluation of Dialogue Systems: Effects of User Feedback on Crowdworkers and LLMs [57.16442740983528]
  In ad-hoc retrieval, evaluation relies heavily on user actions, including implicit feedback. The role of user feedback in annotators' assessment of turns in a conversational perception has been little studied. We focus on how the evaluation of task-oriented dialogue systems ( TDSs) is affected by considering user feedback, explicit or implicit, as provided through the follow-up utterance of a turn being evaluated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-19T16:45:50Z)
• How Far Are LLMs from Believable AI? A Benchmark for Evaluating the Believability of Human Behavior Simulation [46.42384207122049]
  We design SimulateBench to evaluate the believability of large language models (LLMs) when simulating human behaviors. Based on SimulateBench, we evaluate the performances of 10 widely used LLMs when simulating characters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-28T16:51:11Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.