Human–Computer Interaction Optimization through LLM-Based Cognitive Modeling and Personalized Dialogue Memory

Authors

  • Blake A. Ortiz School of Information Technology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
  • Olivier Robles Department of Computer Science, Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY, USA.

Keywords:

Human-computer interaction, large language models, cognitive modeling, personalized memory, dialogue systems, system architecture, fairness, governance

Abstract

The rapid evolution of large language models has transformed human–computer interaction, yet persistent challenges remain in aligning system behavior with user intent, context, and long-term preferences. This paper presents a system-level examination of how cognitive modeling and personalized dialogue memory can be integrated into LLM-based interactive systems to optimize human–computer interaction. We argue that treating interaction as a continuous cognitive process, rather than a series of stateless exchanges, requires architectures that embed working memory, episodic recall, and user-specific semantic representations directly into the inference loop. By analyzing structural trade-offs across centralized and federated memory designs, latency-sensitive retrieval mechanisms, and adaptive personalization engines, the paper maps the design space for scalable, robust, and fair cognitive dialogue systems. We explore the interplay between memory decay, forgetting policies, and the right to be forgotten under governance frameworks such as the GDPR, revealing tensions between personalization depth and data minimization. Through case illustrations in healthcare and enterprise deployment, we show how architectural decisions around memory persistence, knowledge conflict resolution, and model retraining frequency directly impact fairness, robustness, and sustainability. The discussion extends to infrastructure implications, including on-device versus cloud-based processing, the carbon footprint of lifelong memory stores, and the long-term socio-technical risks of feedback loops that amplify cognitive biases. The paper concludes by identifying actionable policy pathways and design principles that guide the responsible deployment of LLM-based cognitive interaction systems, highlighting future research directions at the intersection of human-centered AI and systems engineering.

References

1. Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, Ł., & Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30.

2. Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., ... & Liang, P. (2021). On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258.

3. Lewis, P., Perez, E., Piktus, A., Petroni, F., Karpukhin, V., Goyal, N., ... & Kiela, D. (2020). Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33, 9459–9474.

4. Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C. L., Mishkin, P., ... & Lowe, R. (2022). Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35, 27730–27744.

5. Yu, X. (2026). Enhancing Search Efficiency through LLM-Based User Memory Systems for Query Matching and Intent Modeling.

6. Weston, J., Chopra, S., & Bordes, A. (2015). Memory networks. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR).

7. Sukhbaatar, S., Weston, J., & Fergus, R. (2015). End-to-end memory networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 28.

8. Lake, B. M., Ullman, T. D., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Gershman, S. J. (2017). Building machines that learn and think like people. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, e253.

9. Song, H., Wang, Y., Zhang, W., Liu, X., & Chua, T.-S. (2019). Exploiting persona information for diverse and personalized dialogue generation. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 2490–2501).

10. Zhang, S., Dinan, E., Urbanek, J., Szlam, A., Kiela, D., & Weston, J. (2018). Personalizing dialogue agents: I have a dog, do you have pets too? In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 2204–2213).

11. Amershi, S., Weld, D., Vorvoreanu, M., Fourney, A., Nushi, B., Collisson, P., ... & Horvitz, E. (2019). Guidelines for human-AI interaction. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–13).

12. Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 610–623).

13. Selbst, A. D., Boyd, D., Friedler, S. A., Venkatasubramanian, S., & Vertesi, J. (2019). Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 59–68).

14. Tamkin, A., Brundage, M., Clark, J., & Ganguli, D. (2021). Understanding the capabilities, limitations, and societal impact of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.02503.

15. Paleyes, A., Urma, R.-G., & Lawrence, N. D. (2022). Challenges in deploying machine learning: A survey of case studies. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(6), 1–29.

16. Kotseruba, I., & Tsotsos, J. K. (2020). 40 years of cognitive architectures: core cognitive abilities and practical applications. Artificial Intelligence Review, 53(1), 17–94.

17. Clark, P., Tafjord, O., & Richardson, K. (2020). Transformers as soft reasoners over language. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 3882–3888).

18. Zaken, E. B., Ravfogel, S., & Goldberg, Y. (2022). BitFit: Simple parameter-efficient fine-tuning for Transformer-based masked language-models. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 1–9).

19. Mazumder, S., Liu, B., Ma, N., & Wang, H. (2019). Lifelong and interactive learning of factual knowledge in dialogues. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual SIGdial Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue (pp. 21–31).

Downloads

Published

2026-06-08