Clarify User Expertise: Towards Proactive Conversational Agents Tailoring Responses to User Proficiency
Authors: Zhihong Cao, Chen Huang
Organizations: School of Computing and Data Science, The University of Hong Kong · Institute of Data Science, National University of Singapore · College of Computer Science, Sichuan University
In the context of information seeking, conversational agents are undergoing an evolution from reactive tools to proactive, personalized assistants. A critical aspect of this evolution is the ability to tailor strategic interactions to a user's unique needs and expectations. Unlike existing studies that focus on proactively clarifying query ambiguities, we center on clarifying the user's expertise in order to tailor responses for better user comprehension. We find that existing agents struggle to determine user expertise from queries alone, a limitation that prevents them from dynamically adapting their responses. To address this gap, we introduce PASSING to empower the agent to proactively clarify a user's expertise through targeted inquiries. This is achieved by our What-to-ask and How-to-ask strategies, induced by LLM self-play. Our extensive experiments also show our superiority. We believe that PASSING represents a crucial step towards creating more human-centric conversational agents.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: User expertise can vary depending on the specific query. LLM agent should tailor its response based on user expertise.
Method
MMLU-Pro
ARC-MCAS
Kappa
Unk
Kappa
Unk
Deterministic
100.0
0.00
100.0
0.00
Fully Random
0.00
16.67
0.00
16.67
Direct Prompt
41.25
28.00
30.64
82.80
CoT
28.47
26.40
70.34
89.60
Self-consistency
85.12
32.00
75.35
86.80
Table 1: Prediction stability and unknown rate of existing methods for query-specific user expertise estimation.
Figure 2: Overview of Passing . It utilizes LLM-induced strategies (i.e., What-to-Ask and How-to-Ask), obtained through self-play simulation.
Aspects
Descriptions
Knowledge Scope (What they know)
The extent, type, and organization of the knowledge of the person: knowing “facts” (explicit knowledge), knowing when to apply it (applied knowledge), or knowing “how” intuitively (tacit knowledge)
Components (What they perceive)
What types of knowledge or information the person relies on: context-free (rules, abstract principles), rule-based (context-aware rule selection), or situational (contextual, experiential patterns)
Perspective (How they organize info)
How the person filters and prioritizes information: overwhelmed easily, making a deliberate plan to filter noise, or instinctively seeing important information without trying
Action (How they decide)
How decisions are made: analytic (step-by-step reasoning) or intuitive (immediate, holistic response)
Commitment (Emotional connection)
The level of personal agency and emotional investment in the outcome: detached (disengaged, rule-following) or involved (personally invested, responsible for outcome)
Table 2: Structured schema used for estimating user expertise based on the Dreyfus Model.
LLM Backbone
Method
MMLU-Pro
ARC-MCAS
Acc. ↑
Kappa ↑
FA ↑
Comp. ↑
US ↑
Unk. ↓
Acc. ↑
Kappa ↑
FA ↑
Comp. ↑
US ↑
Unk. ↓
Evaluation with LLM Simulators
GPT-4o
IDL ( the best baseline )
20.0
40.31
3.75
3.62
-
23.79
20.0
15.00
4.59
3.42
-
4.40
Direct Prompt
16.0
41.25
3.84
3.69
-
28.00
20.0
30.64
4.59
3.67
-
82.80
Passing
77.1
64.90
3.85
3.83
4.01
0.0
87.4
71.28
4.59
3.87
4.18
0.0
Passing w/o What-to-ask
68.6
64.43
3.81
3.87
3.96
0.0
76.8
67.26
4.45
3.86
4.08
0.0
Table 3: Main results. Best results are in bold, and second-best results are underlined.
Figure 3: Pairwise similarity among induced strategies (13 What-to-ask and 8 How-to-ask strategies in total)
Figure 4: Effect of the number of probing strategies on expertise estimation accuracy and user satisfaction.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Metric
Value
What-to-Ask intra-class similarity
0.608
How-to-Ask intra-class similarity
0.604
Inter-class similarity
0.604
Diversity gap Δ
0.003
Silhouette score
0.006
Appendix
Table 4: Semantic similarity statistics for induced strategies.
Setting
Passing US (95% CI)
Difference (95% CI)
Holm p
GPT-4o / MMLU-Pro
4.580 [4.540, 4.621]
1.224 [1.073, 1.360]
0.007812
GPT-4o / ARC-MCAS
4.583 [4.573, 4.594]
1.028 [0.999, 1.055]
0.007812
DeepSeekV4-Pro / MMLU-Pro
4.423 [4.408, 4.436]
1.146 [1.056, 1.234]
0.007812
DeepSeekV4-Pro / ARC-MCAS
4.568 [4.558, 4.580]
1.280 [1.240, 1.321]
0.007812
Appendix
Table 5: Error Bars and Statistical Significance in Human Evaluation.
Dataset
Backbone
Gwet’s AC2 ↑
FA
Comp.
US
Human–Human
ARC-MCAS
DeepSeek-V4-Pro
0.7681
0.6996
0.6641
GPT-4o
0.6949
0.8488
0.7614
MMLU-Pro
DeepSeek-V4-Pro
0.8698
0.8121
0.7888
GPT-4o
0.6213
0.5153
0.6477
Appendix
Table 6: Inter-rater agreement (Gwet’s AC2) for human–human and human–LLM evaluation across datasets and backbones. FA: factual accuracy; Comp.: comprehensibility; US: user satisfaction.
GPT-4o / MMLU-Pro
GPT-4o / ARC-MCAS
DeepSeekV4-Pro / MMLU-Pro
DeepSeekV4-Pro / ARC-MCAS
N
AB
C
P
E
N
AB
C
P
E
N
AB
C
P
E
N
AB
C
P
E
N
14
0
0
0
0
N
18
1
0
0
0
N
14
0
0
0
0
N
18
1
0
0
0
AB
0
12
1
1
0
AB
2
17
0
0
0
AB
6
8
0
0
0
AB
4
15
0
0
0
C
0
1
13
0
0
C
0
1
18
0
0
C
0
2
9
3
0
C
0
3
13
3
0
P
0
0
0
14
0
P
0
0
0
19
0
P
0
1
0
13
0
P
0
0
1
16
2
E
0
1
5
7
1
E
0
0
2
6
11
E
0
0
0
4
10
E
0
0
0
6
13
Appendix
Table 7: Confusion matrices across different LLM backbones and datasets. Rows denote ground-truth Dreyfus levels and columns denote predicted levels in the order Novice, Advanced Beginner, Competent, Proficient, Expert.
Case
Domain
Expertise
IDL Pred.
Passing Pred.
IDL Error Pattern
Passing Evidence
Case 1
Computer Science
Competent
Advanced Beginner
Competent
Underestimates the user because closed-form QA history appears shallow.
Probes concept boundaries, mechanism understanding, and applied judgment.
Case 2
Chemistry
Competent
Proficient
Competent
Overestimates the user because advanced terminology appears expert-like.
Probes mechanism understanding, uncertainty, and guided reasoning.
Appendix
Table 8: Case-level comparison between IDL and Passing .
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used by end users, yet existing personalization methods relying on static profiles or text-only signals fail to capture query-specific expertise variation. We present ExPerT, a query-wise personalization framework that adapts LLM responses to users' query domain expertise by combining semantic and behavioral cues. ExPerT consists of two key components: (i) a semantic-behavioral expertise inference module that jointly interprets query text and keystroke dynamics via in-context LLM prompting, and (ii) an expertise-conditioned response generation that adapts the level of detail, terminology, and conceptual complexity. Our user study with 40 participants and 1270 queries demonstrated that ExPerT reduced expertise inference error by 65.7% compared to the strongest baseline (MAE = 0.398 vs. 1.162) and improved response satisfaction by 17.52% (from 3.71 to 4.36) on a 5-point Likert scale.
Tool-using LLM agents must decide not only whether additional information is needed, but also which source can resolve the uncertainty. Existing proactive approaches often specialize in either user clarification or environment verification, without explicitly determining the appropriate information source for each decision. We formulate this problem as uncertainty routing among ACT, CLARIFY, and VERIFY, and propose PROUR, a proactive uncertainty routing framework. PROUR decomposes action uncertainty into disagreement across plausible user-goal interpretations, which signals user-side ambiguity, and the entropy remaining within each interpretation, which signals missing world-side evidence. To acquire information from the routed source, a query generator is trained with a mode-conditioned information-gain reward, targeting user-goal identification under CLARIFY and next-action identification under VERIFY. On τ-bench, PROUR achieves 28.17% average success rate across retail and airline, outperforming the strongest prior method by 4.57% while using 2.17 fewer interaction steps. The learned policy further generalizes to stronger task agents and transactional domains of τ3-bench without retraining, demonstrating the benefit of source-aligned uncertainty resolution for proactive agents.
Zhaofeng Li, Xuan Zhang, Xiaokui Xiao +1
National University of Singapore · Singapore Management University
Proactive agents are expected to anticipate user needs and provide autonomous assistance by perceiving environmental context without explicit instructions. A fundamental capability of such agents is to identify and track users' upcoming events, enabling continuous and event-specific assistance. For example, by recording the time and location of a planned hike, an agent can deliver weather reminders in advance or provide navigation support before departure. However, existing works on proactive agents largely overlook event-centric assistance, and the open-ended nature of proactive assistance poses challenges for reliable evaluation. To bridge these gaps, we introduce ProEvent, the first event-centric benchmark designed to assess an agent's ability to proactively maintain a user's timetable based on ongoing instant messaging chats. ProEvent provides synthesized yet realistic chats that consider the dynamic interaction among users, concurrent chat threads, and noise in the real world, and evaluates proactive agents on response timing, single-step response correctness, and multi-step response correctness. Experiments on eight LLMs and pipelines reveal that current agents frequently overact and struggle with event cancellation. Notably, even GPT-5.1 only reacts correctly in 26.7% of scenarios. Further qualitative analysis reveals fundamental limitations of current LLMs as proactive agents, particularly in detecting implicit events and reasoning from the user's first-person perspective.