# SimInter: Evidence-Grounded User Simulation with Interview-Based Profile Enrichment for Conversational Recommender Systems

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.18308 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.18308/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 20 of its 44 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 13 Oct 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 20 of 20)

- [Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.10084/) (2019)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [From Persona to Personalization: A Survey on Role-Playing Language Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.18231/) (2024)
- [Towards Deep Conversational Recommendations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1812.07617/) (2018)
- [Towards Knowledge-Based Recommender Dialog System](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.05391/) (2019)
- [INSPIRED: Toward Sociable Recommendation Dialog Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.14306/) (2020)
- [Towards Unified Conversational Recommender Systems via Knowledge-Enhanced Prompt Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.09363/) (2022)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models as Generative User Simulators for Conversational Recommendation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.09738/) (2024)
- [Evaluating Conversational Recommender Systems via User Simulation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.08732/) (2020)
- [How Reliable is Your Simulator? Analysis on the Limitations of Current LLM-based User Simulators for Conversational Recommendation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.16416/) (2024)
- [GenTUS: Simulating User Behaviour and Language in Task-oriented Dialogues with Generative Transformers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.10817/) (2022)
- [User Simulation in the Era of Generative AI: User Modeling, Synthetic Data Generation, and System Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.04410/) (2025)
- [Listening between the Lines: Learning Personal Attributes from Conversations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.10887/) (2019)
- [Pearl: A Review-driven Persona-Knowledge Grounded Conversational Recommendation Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04460/) (2024)
- [PUB: An LLM-Enhanced Personality-Driven User Behaviour Simulator for Recommender System Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.04551/) (2025)
- [Identifying Breakdowns in Conversational Recommender Systems using User Simulation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.14249/) (2024)
- [You Get What You Chat: Using Conversations to Personalize Search-based Recommendations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.04716/) (2021)
- [Evaluating Conversational Recommender Systems via Large Language Models: A User-Centric Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.09493/) (2025)
- [Limitations of Current Evaluation Practices for Conversational Recommender Systems and the Potential of User Simulation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.05624/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Conversational Recommender Systems (CRSs) require reliable user simulators for cost-effective evaluation. LLM-based simulators have made realistic simulation possible but typically condition on profiles derived from explicit ratings, demographics, and static sources capturing surface preferences while omitting implicit behavioral characteristics such as decision-making style, aspect-level preferences, and domain expertise. We propose SimInter, a pipeline that elicits these attributes via synthetic interviews between two LLM agents, grounded in the user's statistical profile and historical conversational evidence. Before profile enrichment, an audit agent explicitly flags potential fabrication and stereotyping at the turn level. We instantiate and evaluate SimInter on movie recommendation. We simulate 300 ReDial users and, on a matched subset of 100 users, compare SimInter with a statistics-only baseline: SimInter significantly increases the diversity of expressed preference aspects (filtered aspect entropy: 1.619 vs. 0.859; paired d = 0.96, Holm-adjusted p < 0.001). This gain persists when the simulator converses with two trained recommenders, KBRD and UniCRS, under two independent evaluation judges (+0.28 to +0.56 nats; all p < 0.001). Human evaluation finds 94.3% of enriched-attribute claims supported or partially supported, while human judgments agree with 95.2% of the auditor's binary filtering decisions on a stratified sample.