An Analysis of Dialogue Repair in Voice Assistants
Open accessAbstract
Spoken dialogue systems have transformed human-machine interaction by providing real-time responses to queries. However, misunderstandings between the user and system persist. This study explores the significance of interactional language in dialogue repair between virtual assistants and users by analyzing interactions with Google Assistant and Siri, focusing on their utilization and response to the other-initiated repair strategy "huh?" prevalent in human-human interaction. Findings reveal several assistant-generated strategies but an inability to replicate human-like repair strategies such as "huh?". English and Spanish user acceptability surveys show differences in users' repair strategy preferences and assistant usage, with both similarities and disparities among the two surveyed languages. These results shed light on inequalities between interactional language in human-human interaction and human-machine interaction, underscoring the need for further research on the impact of interactional language in human-machine interaction in English and beyond.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
[25] found that English speakers generally found the use of 'huh?' as a system-repair strategy somewhat acceptable whereas Spanish speakers found it unacceptable.
“Recently, [25] investigated the impact of interactional language, specifically examining user reactions to the use of”
From System and User Strategies to Repair Conversational Breakdowns of Spoken Dialogue Systems: A Scoping Review (2024) · cites this paper as [25]
Section 3.3 (Task C—Repair User Evaluation; page unavailable) says neither assistant produced “huh?” in English or Spanish. Participants rated the assistants’ actual repair responses, so the paper does not report English and Spanish judgments of “huh?” used by the system. The English–Spanish acceptability difference in that section concerns strategy 6, an internet search, not “huh?”. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- Ana Paula Chaves and Marco Aurelio Gerosa. 2021. How should my chatbot interact? a survey on human-chatbot interaction design. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 37, 8, (May 9, 2021), 729-758. arXiv: 1904.027 43[cs]. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2020.1841438. · DOI · Paper page
- Johan J. Bolhuis, (Ed.) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0078273. · DOI
- Mark Dingemanse et al. 2015. Universal principles in the repair of communica- tion problems. PloS One, 10, 9, e0136100. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136100. · DOI
- Makoto Hayashi, Geoffrey Raymond, and Jack Sidnell, (Eds.) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 343-380. isbn: 978-0-511-75746-4. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511757464.012. · DOI
- Jonathan Ginzburg. 2012. The Interactive Stance: Meaning for Conversation. OCLC: ocn742512011. Oxford University Press, Oxford ; New York. 416 pp. isbn: 978-0-19-969792-2.
- Asier Gutiérrez-Fandiño et al. 2022. MarIA: spanish language models. Proce- samiento del Lenguaje Natural, 39-60. doi: 10.26342/2022-68-3. · DOI
- Matthew B. Hoy. 2018. Alexa, siri, cortana, and more: an introduction to voice assistants. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 37, 1, (Jan. 2, 2018), 81-88. doi: 10.1080/02763869.2018.1404391. · DOI · Paper page
- Stephen C. Levinson. 2019. Interactional foundations of language: the interac- tion engine hypothesis. In Human language: From genes and brains to behavior. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, US, 189-200. isbn: 978-0-262-04263-5.
- Martina Wiltschko. 2021. The Grammar of Interactional Language. (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press, (June 30, 2021). isbn: 978-1-108-69370-7. doi: 10.1017/9781108693707. · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Alghamdi, E., Halvey, M., & Nicol, E. (2024) · ACM Conversational User Interfaces 2024 · doi:10.1145/3640794.3665558 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
- Authors
- Galbraith, M.
- Affiliations
- Universitat Pompeu Fabra (ES)
- Corresponding author
- Galbraith, Matthew
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2311.03952
- OpenAlex
- W4388514742
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
- Keywords
- voice assistants, spoken dialogue systems, human-machine interaction, Google Assistant, Siri, user acceptance, misunderstanding
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
