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.
Insert-expansions for Tool-enabled Conversational Agents
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
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.
citation-role summary
citation-polarity summary
fields
cs.CY 1years
2025 1verdicts
CONDITIONAL 1roles
background 1polarities
unclear 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
Bridging Gaps Between Student and Expert Evaluations of AI-Generated Programming Hints
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.