Paras Sharma

Paras Sharma, YuePing Sha, Janet Shufor Bih Epse Fofang et al.

Dialogue systems have long supported learner reflections, with theoretically grounded, rule-based designs offering structured scaffolding but often struggling to respond to shifts in engagement. Large Language Models (LLMs), in contrast, can generate context-sensitive responses but are not informed by decades of research on how learning interactions should be structured, raising questions about their alignment with pedagogical theories. This paper presents a hybrid dialogue system that embeds LLM responsiveness within a theory-aligned, rule-based framework to support learner reflections in a culturally responsive robotics summer camp. The rule-based structure grounds dialogue in self-regulated learning theory, while the LLM decides when and how to prompt deeper reflections, responding to evolving conversation context. We analyze themes across dialogues to explore how our hybrid system shaped learner reflections. Our findings indicate that LLM-embedded dialogues supported richer learner reflections on goals and activities, but also introduced challenges due to repetitiveness and misalignment in prompts, reducing engagement.

Yuya Asano, Sabit Hassan, Paras Sharma et al.

General-purpose automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems do not always perform well in goal-oriented dialogue. Existing ASR correction methods rely on prior user data or named entities. We extend correction to tasks that have no prior user data and exhibit linguistic flexibility such as lexical and syntactic variations. We propose a novel context augmentation with a large language model and a ranking strategy that incorporates contextual information from the dialogue states of a goal-oriented conversational AI and its tasks. Our method ranks (1) n-best ASR hypotheses by their lexical and semantic similarity with context and (2) context by phonetic correspondence with ASR hypotheses. Evaluated in home improvement and cooking domains with real-world users, our method improves recall and F1 of correction by 34% and 16%, respectively, while maintaining precision and false positive rate. Users rated .8-1 point (out of 5) higher when our correction method worked properly, with no decrease due to false positives.