Stephanie: Step-by-Step Dialogues for Mimicking Human Interactions
in Social Conversations

To efficiently generate step-by-step dialogues that mimic real human social interactions, inspired by contrastive learning, we propose a dual learning strategy combining both positive and negative learning objectives within a comprehensive prompt framework named step-by-step dialogue prompt framework. As illustrated in Figure 2, the framework consists of three elements: background information $D$, positive learning objectives $P$, and negative learning objectives $N$, aiming to enhance the model’s ability to generate dialogues that are both rich and natural. the comprehensive prompt framework can be formulated as:

where $r$ is the response output of the model, and the design of the three elements is as follows:

• •

  Background Information: We use an LLM to summarize and generate the themes $T$ of each dialogue segment from the persona-chat dataset and the characteristics $C$ of the dialogue participants, to form the background information $D=\{T,C\}$. This information guides the model’s generation, covering common topics such as family, work, and leisure activities, while considering the diverse personalities of the dialogue participants—for example, one might be described as optimistic and active, while another might be portrayed as having recently faced setbacks but remaining diligent and academically inclined.

• •

  Positive Learning Objectives: To help the model understand the step-by-step dialogue paradigm, we created five high-quality step-by-step dialogue examples as the negative objectives $P$. These examples simulate everyday social exchanges between two individuals and serve as a basis for few-shot learning, training the model to generate coherent and emotionally rich step-by-step dialogues in different background contexts.

• •

  Negative Learning Objectives: Simultaneously, we designed five high-quality single-step dialogue examples as the negative objectives $N$. Through contrastive learning, these examples enable the model to discern the differences between single-step and step-by-step dialogues. This negative learning approach helps the model better understand the step-by-step dialogue paradigm by pushing away dissimilar single-step dialogue examples.

This dual learning strategy is a robust prompting framework. Through this structured approach, the model considers both positive and negative learning objectives during dialogue generation, enhancing its ability to understand and generate step-by-step dialogues while ensuring that the generated dialogues align with the themes and character traits in the background information.

Although the method described in Section 3.1 enabled the model to make some progress in generating step-by-step dialogues, our evaluation showed that some generated dialogues still exhibited characteristics of single-step dialogues, such as dense, one-time responses. To address this issue and further enhance the coherence and naturalness of emotional expression in dialogues, we designed a post-editing optimization method called "further-split."

In this process, we selected five initial step-by-step dialogues generated by the model for detailed analysis and manual restructuring. We further split these dialogues according to the natural flow and emotional progression of actual conversations, reorganizing and optimizing the content. The optimized step-by-step dialogue examples were paired with the original examples, serving as rewritten examples to guide the model in learning how to further split and rewrite dialogues, thereby generating more natural and human-like step-by-step dialogues to closely mimic real social interactions.

Based on the aforementioned comprehensive prompt framework and the further-split post-editing method, we generated a high-quality step-by-step dialogue dataset. To effectively utilize this dataset for finetuning existing large language models, we designed a specific finetuning strategy.

During the finetuning process, we introduced delimiters to format the dataset, providing structured input and output for the model, where the content between each pair of delimiters represents a single exchange between the two dialogue participants. We then used this newly formatted step-by-step dialogue dataset to finetune the model. After finetuning, the model’s output also adopted the same delimiter-separated step-by-step dialogue format. Finally, we used a series of scripts and software tools to design a user-friendly UI interface that converts the input and output into a format similar to message bubbles in social software, allowing users to interact with the large language model using the step-by-step dialogue paradigm.

This plug-and-play finetuning strategy enables our step-by-step dialogue dataset to be compatible with various existing language models, thereby constructing a dialogue system capable of step-by-step interactions to provide a coherent and emotionally rich dialogue experience in practical applications.

Our incremental dialogue dataset originates from the PERSONACHAT dataset. It is a renowned multi-turn dialogue dataset grounded in character personas, with each dialogue instance typically comprising around 8 turns, where each self and partner character is described by roughly 4 traits.

From the training set of PERSONA-CHAT, we curated 5,457 high-quality dialogues. Initially, we employed the Llama3-70b model to summarize the theme of each dialogue, with summaries averaging between 50 to 100 words. Subsequently, we adopted the Stephanie dialogue generation approach described herein, incorporating these dialogue themes and approximately 4 traits of both characters as background information. We use the Llama3-70b model to generate an incremental dialogue dataset consisting of 5,457 dialogues, where each character involved exhibits roughly 4 traits.

We describe the prompt generated for step-by-step dialogue with Stephanie as follows:

We can also describe the prompt optimized for generating step-by-step dialogue using the Further-Split method as follows:

In evaluating the performance of our model, we consider several leading models in the field of language processing. These models are used as benchmarks due to their significant capabilities in various tasks within natural language processing. Each model is briefly described as follows:

• •

  GPT-4: Developed by OpenAI, GPT-4 represents the latest advancement in the Generative Pre-trained Transformer series. Renowned for its vast knowledge base and flexibility across multiple tasks, GPT-4 is a critical benchmark for assessing advanced language understanding and generation capabilities.

• •

  Llama3-70b: Also from Meta’s Llama series, the Llama3-70b model, with its 70 billion parameters, is aimed at deep contextual understanding and complex reasoning tasks. It serves as a high-end model for performance comparison.

• •

  Llama3-8b: A model from Meta’s Llama family, Llama3-8b is designed to provide a balance between performance and efficiency with its 8 billion parameters. It is optimized for rapid response and lower resource usage, making it suitable for real-time applications.

• •

  Phi3-3.8b: Phi3-3.8b from Microsoft’s Phi-3 series of small language models excels in performance while being highly efficient in terms of computational resource usage. These models are designed for flexible deployment across cloud, on-device, and edge computing scenarios, ensuring effectiveness even with limited connectivity. Phi3-3.8b uses high-quality, curated training data to achieve results comparable to larger models.

To comprehensively assess the performance of our step-by-step dialogue, we have utilized a series of evaluation metrics aimed at thoroughly measuring various aspects such as the diversity, naturalness, and effectiveness of the dialogues, among others. These metrics include: Dialogue Experience Metrics (suitable for both automated and human evaluations), Lexical Diversity Metrics (Distinct-N), and statistical features of the dialogue data, such as the average number of words per message and the Average Consecutive Message Counts (ACMC).

• •

  Dialogue Experience Metrics: Interesting: The degree of interest in the dialogue. If the dialogue carries a negative sentiment, the score is 0. Informative: The amount of information contained in the dialogue. Natural: Whether the dialogue is natural and human-like. Engaging: Whether the dialogue is engaging, meaning if what is said by both roles makes them want to continue the dialogue. On-topic: Whether the dialogue stays on the topic described in the dialogue topic. On-persona: Whether the dialogue matches the personas of role1 and role2.

• •

  Distinct-N: To quantify the lexical diversity of the dialogues, we utilize the Distinct-N metric. This metric calculates the diversity of n-grams in the generated responses across all possible values of $N$, showing the system’s capability to produce varied and engaging content. The Distinct-N is defined as:

  $$\text{Distinct-N}=\frac{\text{Total unique n-grams}}{\text{Total n-grams}}$$

• •

  Words/Message: Calculates the average number of words per message, providing insight into the verbosity or conciseness of the dialogues. This helps in determining the efficiency and clarity of the communication. The formula for Words/Messages is defined as:

  $$\text{Words/Message}=\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}w_{i}}{n}$$

  where $w_{i}$ is the number of words in the $i$-th message, and $n$ represents the total number of messages.

• •

  ACMC (Average Consecutive Message Counts): This metric measures the average number of consecutive messages sent by one participant before receiving a response. It is calculated as:

  $$\text{ACMC}=\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}c_{i}}{m}$$

  where $c_{i}$ is the number of consecutive messages in the $i$-th turn without interruption by the other participant, $n$ is the total number of such turns, and $m$ is the total number of messages sent by the participant.

We selected 100 conversation data from the persona-chat dataset as the Original Single-Step Dialogue $\alpha$. First, we used GPT-4 to summarize the themes of these 100 dialogues. Then, along with the personas of the dialogue participants, we used this background information to write prompts using the Step-by-Step Dialogue Prompt Framework proposed in this paper. These prompts were fed into GPT-4 to generate the Generated Single-Step Dialogue $\beta$. We also applied a further-split method to optimize the $\beta$, resulting in the Further-Split Step-by-Step Dialogue $\gamma$. Additionally, we conducted corresponding experiments with the Llama3-70b and phi3-3.8b models, generating their respective $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$, and Stephanie.

Subsequently, we conducted automatic machine assessments of the three models on six metrics: Interesting, Informative, Natural, Engaging, On-topic, and On-persona. with Claude-3-sonnet as the assessment expert providing scores from 0 to 100, as shown in tables 1 and 2. The $\beta$s generated by the large models were generally weaker than the original dialogues on most metrics, with the exception of the ’Natural’ metric for GPT-4, where $\beta$ performed better than $\alpha$. This indicates that single-step dialogues generated by large models are inferior to original human dialogues. The $\gamma$ was significantly superior to $\alpha$ on all six metrics, demonstrating the superiority of the step-by-step dialogue paradigm. Stephanie showed further improvement over the $\beta$, highlighting the effectiveness of the further-split method. Additionally, we conducted a human evaluation of GPT-4, inviting three advanced graduate students majoring in English to score on a 0-5 scale. The results were positively consistent with the prior results.

We conducted further statistics on the $\beta$, $\gamma$, and Stephanie generated by GPT-4. Table 4 presents the statistics for $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$, and Stephanie, including the average number of words per response (Words/Messages) and the Average Number of Consecutive Message Counts (ACMC). The results show that the $\beta$ is similar to $\alpha$, with $\beta$’s Words/message being slightly higher than $\alpha$’s. Compared to $\alpha$ and $\beta$, $\gamma$ has fewer Words/message and a higher ACMC, indicating that step-by-step dialogues tend to be shorter and contain more messages. Notably, Stephanie, in comparison to $\gamma$, further effectively reduces Words/Messages and significantly increases ACMC, demonstrating the effectiveness of the further-split method. Table 5 displays the proportion of consecutive message counts, where it is also evident that $\gamma$, compared to $\alpha$ and $\beta$, has more consecutive replies. Furthermore, Figure 3 illustrates that Stephanie effectively shifts the distribution of the number of consecutive messages to the right relative to $\gamma$.

In assessing lexical diversity among dialogue models, the "Distinct-N" table provides a comparative analysis using the Distinct-N metric for n-grams ranging from N=2 to N=6. As shown in fig 3, The Original Single-Step Dialogue $\alpha$ maintains high diversity, which increases with the complexity of n-grams, reflecting typical human dialogue characteristics. However, the Generated Single-Step Dialogue $\beta$ exhibits lower diversity scores, especially for higher n-grams, indicating limitations in linguistic variability. Notably, the Generated Step-by-Step Dialogue $\gamma$ and Further-Split Step-by-Step Dialogue (Stephanie) show superior performance, with Stephanie achieving the highest diversity across most categories. The significant performance of Stephanie in larger n-grams highlights the effectiveness of the further-split method in producing dialogues that are diverse and closely mimic the complex linguistic structures of human communication. This demonstrates that our proposed generation methods and prompting framework can significantly enhance the quality and human-likeness of machine-generated text.

Following the demonstration of the effectiveness of our proposed paradigms, generation methods, and prompting frameworks, we aimed to provide a high-quality dataset for fine-tuning existing large models. To this end, we generated a high-quality step-by-step dialogue dataset consisting of 5,457 segments using the Llama3-70b model. Subsequently, we fine-tuned the Llama3-8b model with this dataset to create the Stephanie-Llama3-8b model. We engaged five testers to interact with both the Llama3-8b and Stephanie-Llama3-8b dialogue systems, assessing them across four metrics. The results show that the model fine-tuned with the step-by-step dialogue dataset exhibited superior step-by-step dialogue capabilities, outperforming the Llama3-8b model on all four metrics as presented in table 6.