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

Synthetic transcript generation is critical in contact center domains, where privacy and data scarcity limit model training and evaluation. Unlike prior synthetic dialogue generation work on open-domain or medical dialogues, contact center conversations are goal-oriented, role-asymmetric, and behaviorally complex, featuring disfluencies, ASR noise, and compliance-driven agent actions. In deployments where transcripts are unavailable, standard pipelines still yield derived call attributes such as Intent Summaries, Topic Flow, and QA Evaluation Forms. We leverage these as supervision signals to guide generation. To assess the quality of such outputs, we introduce a diagnostic framework of 18 linguistically and behaviorally grounded metrics for comparing real and synthetic transcripts. We benchmark four language-agnostic generation strategies, from simple prompting to characteristic-aware multi-stage approaches, alongside reference-free baselines. Results reveal persistent challenges: no method excels across all traits, with notable deficits in disfluency, sentiment, and behavioral realism. Our diagnostic tool exposes these gaps, enabling fine-grained evaluation and stress testing of synthetic dialogue across languages.

Towards Probing Contact Center Large Language Models

Fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) with domain-specific instructions has emerged as an effective method to enhance their domain-specific understanding. Yet, there is limited work that examines the core characteristics acquired during this process. In this study, we benchmark the fundamental characteristics learned by contact-center (CC) specific instruction fine-tuned LLMs with out-of-the-box (OOB) LLMs via probing tasks encompassing conversational, channel, and automatic speech recognition (ASR) properties. We explore different LLM architectures (Flan-T5 and Llama), sizes (3B, 7B, 11B, 13B), and fine-tuning paradigms (full fine-tuning vs PEFT). Our findings reveal remarkable effectiveness of CC-LLMs on the in-domain downstream tasks, with improvement in response acceptability by over 48% compared to OOB-LLMs. Additionally, we compare the performance of OOB-LLMs and CC-LLMs on the widely used SentEval dataset, and assess their capabilities in terms of surface, syntactic, and semantic information through probing tasks. Intriguingly, we note a relatively consistent performance of probing classifiers on the set of probing tasks. Our observations indicate that CC-LLMs, while outperforming their out-of-the-box counterparts, exhibit a tendency to rely less on encoding surface, syntactic, and semantic properties, highlighting the intricate interplay between domain-specific adaptation and probing task performance opening up opportunities to explore behavior of fine-tuned language models in specialized contexts.