Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Insert-expansions for Tool-enabled Conversational Agents

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2307.01644 v1 pith:K5SSYNAX submitted 2023-07-04 cs.HC cs.AIcs.CL

classification cs.HCcs.AIcs.CL
keywords agentsconversationconversationalexplorefindtool-enabledtoolsuser
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

This paper delves into an advanced implementation of Chain-of-Thought-Prompting in Large Language Models, focusing on the use of tools (or "plug-ins") within the explicit reasoning paths generated by this prompting method. We find that tool-enabled conversational agents often become sidetracked, as additional context from tools like search engines or calculators diverts from original user intents. To address this, we explore a concept wherein the user becomes the tool, providing necessary details and refining their requests. Through Conversation Analysis, we characterize this interaction as insert-expansion - an intermediary conversation designed to facilitate the preferred response. We explore possibilities arising from this 'user-as-a-tool' approach in two empirical studies using direct comparison, and find benefits in the recommendation domain.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Bridging Gaps Between Student and Expert Evaluations of AI-Generated Programming Hints

    cs.CY 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Expert rubric ratings overstate student-perceived helpfulness of AI-generated hints in 26.6% of cases, with mismatch reasons grouped into five categories and preliminary fixes proposed.

Pith tools