Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HFEPX · Eval paper review

DiPS: Dialogue Policy Selection for High-Stakes Persuasion Agents

Tianyi Zhang, Mousumi Das, Abrar Anwar, Jesse Thomason +1 more

Published

Jul 2, 2026

Citations

0

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 (Low)

Extraction confidence

15% (Low)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Not reported

Signals refreshed

Jul 2, 2026

Open arXiv Find implementation Shortlist (0) RSS feed

Should you rely on this paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Human feedback signal
Not explicit
Not explicit in abstract metadata
Evaluation signal
Weak or implicit
Validate from full paper
Usefulness for eval research
0/100
Adjacent candidate

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here

Human Eval Papers LLM-as-Judge Papers Pairwise Preference Papers Tool-Use Evaluation Search

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle with persuasion in high-stakes scenarios. People's individual personalities and concerns require tailored strategies rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. To address this challenge, we focus on a fire-rescue scenario in which an operator must persuade a resident to evacuate as a high-stakes persuasion domain and propose Dialogue Policy Selection (DiPS), a Q-learning framework to dynamically select persuasion strategies adapted to the evolving conversational context. Specifically, we train a critic, trained to maximize the chance of evacuation success, to select a persuasion policy at each turn based on the resident's recent utterances.We then evaluate DiPS against multiple baselines in both simulated and real human interactions. We find that DiPS achieves higher evacuation success than a zero-shot LLM and generic RAG-augmented approach.

What we could verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle with persuasion in high-stakes scenarios."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle with persuasion in high-stakes scenarios."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle with persuasion in high-stakes scenarios."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle with persuasion in high-stakes scenarios."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle with persuasion in high-stakes scenarios."

Benchmarks and datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Human feedback details
Uses human feedback
No
Feedback types
None
Rater population
Not reported
Expertise required
General
Evaluation details
Evaluation modes
None
Agentic eval
None
Quality controls
Not reported
Evidence quality
Low
Use this page as
Background context only

Research brief

Metadata summary

Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle with persuasion in high-stakes scenarios.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key takeaways

  • Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle with persuasion in high-stakes scenarios.
  • People's individual personalities and concerns require tailored strategies rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.
  • To address this challenge, we focus on a fire-rescue scenario in which an operator must persuade a resident to evacuate as a high-stakes persuasion domain and propose Dialogue Policy Selection (DiPS), a Q-learning framework to dynamically select persuasion strategies adapted to the evolving conversational context.

Researcher actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended queries

Contribution summary

  • Specifically, we train a critic, trained to maximize the chance of evacuation success, to select a persuasion policy at each turn based on the resident's recent utterances.We then evaluate DiPS against multiple baselines in both simulated…

Why it matters for eval

  • Specifically, we train a critic, trained to maximize the chance of evacuation success, to select a persuasion policy at each turn based on the resident's recent utterances.We then evaluate DiPS against multiple baselines in both simulated…

Researcher checklist

  • Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.