Why Synthetic Isn't Real Yet: A Diagnostic Framework for Contact Center Dialogue Generation

Rishikesh Devanathan, Varun Nathan, Ayush Kumar · Aug 25, 2025 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

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

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

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

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Synthetic data is increasingly critical for contact centers, where privacy constraints and data scarcity limit the availability of real conversations. However, generating synthetic dialogues that are realistic and useful for downstream applications remains challenging. In this work, we benchmark multiple generation strategies guided by structured supervision on call attributes (Intent Summaries, Topic Flows, and Quality Assurance (QA) Forms) across multiple languages. To test downstream utility, we evaluate synthetic transcripts on an automated quality assurance (AutoQA) task, finding that prompts optimized on real transcripts consistently outperform those optimized on synthetic transcripts. These results suggest that current synthetic transcripts fall short in capturing the full realism of real agent-customer interactions. To highlight these downstream gaps, we introduce a diagnostic evaluation framework comprising 17 metrics across four dimensions: (1) Emotional and Sentiment Arcs, (2) Linguistic Complexity, (3) Interaction Style, and (4) Conversational Properties. Our analysis shows that even with structured supervision, current generation strategies exhibit measurable deficiencies in sentiment fidelity, disfluency modeling, behavioral variation, and conversational realism. Together, these results highlight the importance of diagnostic, metric-driven evaluation for synthetic conversation generation intended for downstream applications.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

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.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

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

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

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

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 25%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

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.