REVIEW 1 cited by
Conversational Assistants in Knowledge-Intensive Contexts: An Evaluation of LLM- versus Intent-based Systems
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
read the original abstract
Conversational Assistants (CA) are increasingly supporting human workers in knowledge management. Traditionally, CAs respond in specific ways to predefined user intents and conversation patterns. However, this rigidness does not handle the diversity of natural language well. Recent advances in natural language processing, namely Large Language Models (LLMs), enable CAs to converse in a more flexible, human-like manner, extracting relevant information from texts and capturing information from expert humans but introducing new challenges such as ``hallucinations''. To assess the potential of using LLMs for knowledge management tasks, we conducted a user study comparing an LLM-based CA to an intent-based system regarding interaction efficiency, user experience, workload, and usability. This revealed that LLM-based CAs exhibited better user experience, task completion rate, usability, and perceived performance than intent-based systems, suggesting that switching NLP techniques can be beneficial in the context of knowledge management.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Understanding Mental Models of Generative Conversational Search and The Effect of Interface Transparency
Users of generative conversational search mostly hold abstract, incomplete mental models, and added interface transparency did not reliably improve those models or satisfaction.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.