To Err is AI: Imperfect Interventions and Repair in a Conversational Agent Facilitating Group Chat Discussions
Hyo Jin Do, Ha Kyung Kong, Pooja Tetali, Jaewook Lee, Brian P. Bailey
Abstract
Conversational agents (CAs) can analyze online conversations using natural language techniques and effectively facilitate group discussions by sending supervisory messages. However, if a CA makes imperfect interventions, users may stop trusting the CA and discontinue using it. In this study, we demonstrate how inaccurate interventions of a CA and a conversational repair strategy can influence user acceptance of the CA, members' participation in the discussion, perceived discussion experience between the members, and group performance. We built a CA that encourages the participation of members with low contributions in an online chat discussion in which a small group (3-6 members) performs a decision-making task. Two types of errors can occur when detecting under-contributing members: 1) false-positive (FP) errors happen when the CA falsely identifies a member as under-contributing and 2) false-negative (FN) errors occur when the CA misses detecting an under-contributing member. We designed a conversational repair strategy that gives users a chance to contest the detection results and the agent sends a correctional message if an error is detected. Through an online study with 175 participants, we found that participants who received FN error messages reported higher acceptance of the CA and better discussion experience, but participated less compared to those who received FP error messages. The conversational repair strategy moderated the effect of errors such as improving the perceived discussion experience of participants who received FP error messages. Based on our findings, we offer design implications for which model should be selected by practitioners between high precision (i.e., fewer FP errors) and high recall (i.e., fewer FN errors) models depending on the desired effects. When frequent FP errors are expected, we suggest using the conversational repair strategy to improve the perceived discussion experience.
CCS Concepts: • Human-centered computing → Empirical studies in HCI; Empirical studies in collaborative and social computing.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext fba38141-593e-4a46-86ae-055c36c9e0bbCited by top-tier papers8
- "As an AI language model, I cannot": Investigating LLM Denials of User RequestsJoel Wester, Tim Schrills, Henning Pohl, Niels van BerkelCHI 2024 · 35 citations
- Are We On Track? AI-Assisted Active and Passive Goal Reflection During MeetingsXinyue Chen, Lev Tankelevitch, Rishi Vanukuru, Ava Elizabeth Scott et al.CHI 2025 · 23 citations
- Marco: Supporting Business Document Workflows via Collection-Centric Information Foraging with Large Language ModelsRaymond Fok, Nedim Lipka, Tong Sun, Alexa F. SiuCHI 2024 · 21 citations
- MeetMap: Real-Time Collaborative Dialogue Mapping with LLMs in Online MeetingsXinyue Chen, Nathan Yap, Xinyi Lu, Aylin Gunal et al.CSCW 2025 · 12 citations
- The AI Double Standard: Humans Judge All AIs for the Actions of OneAikaterina Manoli, Janet V. T. Pauketat, Jacy Reese AnthisCSCW 2025 · 10 citations
Builds on10
- Bot in the Bunch: Facilitating Group Chat Discussion by Improving Efficiency and Participation with a ChatbotSoomin Kim, Jinsu Eun, Changhoon Oh, Bongwon Suh et al.CHI 2020 · 132 citations
- Multi-Modal Repairs of Conversational Breakdowns in Task-Oriented DialogsToby Jia-Jun Li, Jingya Chen, Haijun Xia, Tom M. Mitchell et al.UIST 2020 · 98 citations
- Moderator Chatbot for Deliberative Discussion: Effects of Discussion Structure and Discussant FacilitationSoomin Kim, Jinsu Eun, Joseph Seering, Joonhwan LeeCSCW 2021 · 84 citations
- False Positives vs. False Negatives: The Effects of Recovery Time and Cognitive Costs on Input Error PreferenceBen Lafreniere, Tanya R. Jonker, Stephanie Santosa, Mark Parent et al.UIST 2021 · 75 citations
- Attitudes Surrounding an Imperfect AI AutograderSilas Hsu, Tiffany Wenting Li, Zhilin Zhang, Max Fowler et al.CHI 2021 · 61 citations
Related papers
- How Should the Agent Communicate to the Group? Communication Strategies of a Conversational Agent in Group Chat DiscussionsHyo Jin Do, Ha Kyung Kong, Jaewook Lee, Brian P. BaileyCSCW 2022 · 30 citations
- Inform, Explain, or Control: Techniques to Adjust End-User Performance Expectations for a Conversational Agent Facilitating Group Chat DiscussionsHyo Jin Do, Ha Kyung Kong, Pooja Tetali, Karrie Karahalios et al.CSCW 2023 · 9 citations
- Engaged and Affective Virtual Agents: Their Impact on Social Presence, Trustworthiness, and Decision-Making in the Group DiscussionHanseob Kim, Bin Han, Jieun Kim, Muhammad Firdaus Syawaludin Lubis et al.CHI 2024 · 34 citations
- My Bad! Repairing Intelligent Voice Assistant Errors Improves InteractionAndrea Cuadra, Shuran Li, Hansol Lee, Jason Cho et al.CSCW 2021 · 52 citations
- Understanding and Supporting Online Discussion with Opinionated ChatbotsTianqi Song, Chi-Lan Yang, Zihan Liu, Zhengtao Xu et al.CSCW 2026
