Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This study critically evaluates the reliability of using LLM prompting versus rule-based algorithms for simulating realistic speech behaviors like disfluency in voice agent testing. The findings indicate that generic LLM prompts fail to produce authentic user interactions, whereas deterministic, linguistically informed methods offer superior control and naturalness for rigorous evaluation. Consequently, the research underscores the necessity of auditing realized behaviors rather than relying on configured settings to ensure valid performance metrics for commercial voice agents.
Sources coveringarXiv, AI Alignment Forum, Quantum Computing Report, LessWrong
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Prompts versus Rules: Auditing and Controlling Speech Naturalness Behaviors in Voice User Simulators

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2610.11015v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As voice agents gain more popularity commercially, the user simulators used to evaluate the deployed agents are also being developed to include more realistic, variable, and diverse speech naturalness behaviors -- disfluency, interruption and backchanneling. The quality of the user simulator directly affects the validity of agent evaluation results. However, we find that most studies so far have not examined in detail whether the intended configuration for these behaviors is realized in the simulation. In this study, we audit the realized naturalness behaviors of tau-Voice, our own LLM-based prompting approach across three models, and our rule-based injection algorithm for disfluency, interruption, and backchanneling. We find that prompting for these behaviors is unreliable and produces speech inconsistent with the instructions, placed and distributed less naturally than the instruction implies. In contrast, our rule-based, model-free algorithm produces controllable and diverse naturalness behaviors more aligned with natural speech. Our results suggest that LLMs not purpose-trained for user simulation are not sufficient on their own to represent authentic user behavior, and that linguistically informed deterministic approaches or specialized models are needed to close the gap; auditing and reporting realized naturalness behaviors, rather than configured settings, is what makes that gap visible.

Abstract:As voice agents gain more popularity commercially, the user simulators used to evaluate the deployed agents are also being developed to include more realistic, variable, and diverse speech naturalness behaviors -- disfluency, interruption and backchanneling. The quality of the user simulator directly affects the validity of agent evaluation results. However, we find that most studies so far have not examined in detail whether the intended configuration for these behaviors is realized in the simulation. In this study, we audit the realized naturalness behaviors of tau-Voice, our own LLM-based prompting approach across three models, and our rule-based injection algorithm for disfluency, interruption, and backchanneling. We find that prompting for these behaviors is unreliable and produces speech inconsistent with the instructions, placed and distributed less naturally than the instruction implies. In contrast, our rule-based, model-free algorithm produces controllable and diverse naturalness behaviors more aligned with natural speech. Our results suggest that LLMs not purpose-trained for user simulation are not sufficient on their own to represent authentic user behavior, and that linguistically informed deterministic approaches or specialized models are needed to close the gap; auditing and reporting realized naturalness behaviors, rather than configured settings, is what makes that gap visible.

Computation and Language (cs.CL)

arXiv:2610.11015 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2610.11015v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.11015 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 292 words

Related coverage