Conversational User-AI Intervention: A Study on Prompt Rewriting for Improved LLM Response Generation
Open accessAbstract
Human-LLM conversations are increasingly becoming more pervasive in peoples' professional and personal lives, yet many users still struggle to elicit helpful responses from LLM Chatbots. One of the reasons for this issue is users' lack of understanding in crafting effective prompts that accurately convey their information needs. Meanwhile, the existence of real-world conversational datasets on the one hand, and the text understanding faculties of LLMs on the other, present a unique opportunity to study this problem, and its potential solutions at scale. Thus, in this paper we present the first LLM-centric study of real human-AI chatbot conversations, focused on investigating aspects in which user queries fall short of expressing information needs, and the potential of using LLMs to rewrite suboptimal user prompts. Our findings demonstrate that rephrasing ineffective prompts can elicit better responses from a conversational system, while preserving the user's original intent. Notably, the performance of rewrites improves in longer conversations, where contextual inferences about user needs can be made more accurately. Additionally, we observe that LLMs often need to -- and inherently do -- make \emph{plausible} assumptions about a user's intentions and goals when interpreting prompts. Our findings largely hold true across conversational domains, user intents, and LLMs of varying sizes and families, indicating the promise of using prompt rewriting as a solution for better human-AI interactions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Sarkar et al. showed that a system that proactively rewrites user instructions to account for underspecification leads to improved LLM response.
“Malaviya et al. [53] highlighted the importance of supporting context for more accurate and principled evaluation of LLM responses on underspecified queries, and Sarkar et al. [69] showed that a system that proactively rewrites user instructions to account for underspecification leads to improved LLM response.”
From LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation (2025) · cites this paper as [69]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation
Laban, P., Hayashi, H., Zhou, Y., & Neville, J. (2025) · arXiv · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Role-Augmented Intent-Driven Generative Search Engine Optimization
Chen, X., Bao, J., Wu, H., Chen, Z., Pan, L., & Liao, Y. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.11158
“[20], [24] Notably, both approaches fail to directly optimize for content visibility within GSE contexts.”
- Authors
- Sarkar, R., Sarrafzadeh, B., Chandrasekaran, N., Rangan, N., Resnik, P., Yang, L., & Jauhar, S. K.
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2503.16789
- OpenAlex
- W4417151521
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Keywords
- prompt rewriting, user-AI interaction, chatbots, large language models, information needs, conversational datasets, prompt engineering, user intention recognition, context inference, response quality
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