Xin Yu

Yiming Liu, Ziyue Zhang, Zhichao Xu et al.

Rewriting inputs to improve frozen downstream models has become a common strategy in modern NLP pipelines. Prior work on incremental dialogue discourse parsing (DDP) shows that supervised clarification models can rewrite fragmentary or underspecified utterances, such as resolving ellipsis or references, to improve parsing accuracy. In this work, we revisit this idea under realistic deployment conditions, where no clarification supervision is available and the clarifier must rely on zero-shot prompting or feedback from a frozen parser. Across three Segmented Discourse Representation Theory (SDRT) datasets and multiple parsers, we find that last-utterance clarification is far less reliable than suggested by supervised settings. Parser-agnostic rewriting often introduces more regressions than repairs, as edits that enable fixes also disrupt discourse cues relied upon by the parser. A best-of-8 rewriting analysis further reveals a practical ceiling: a large fraction of errors are not repairable through input rewriting alone. A parser-aware clarifier trained with GRPO reduces regressions by up to 37% by learning conservative abstention, yet still fails to produce selectivity-aware clarifications that consistently improve parsing. Together, these findings recast clarification as a selective intervention problem. We identify rewritability prediction, deciding whether an utterance is repairable before intervention, as the key missing capability for input-side optimization of frozen discourse parsers, and a critical direction for improving agentic pipelines more broadly.

Qian Chen, Chengyuan Liu, Xin Yu

Autonomous customer-service agents are shifting from conversational interfaces toward operational execution roles: they retrieve firm records, apply service policies, and execute backend writes such as refunds, cancellations, exchanges, order modifications, and reservation changes. This shift creates a service-control problem: firms must keep routine service fast and low-friction while preventing operational errors on requests where customer instructions, policy constraints, firm records, and backend writes interact. We propose a difficulty-routed service-control architecture that asks when service agents should reconsider before acting. A lightweight router keeps routine sessions on a low-cost baseline path and routes operationally coupled sessions to an escalated workflow. The escalated path uses conflict-aware communication and write-triggered reconsideration to concentrate deliberation and safeguards before consequential backend writes, rather than applying additional control uniformly across all service sessions. We evaluate the architecture on human-verified retail and airline tasks from $τ^{2}$-bench. In retail, the method improves reliability consistently on service requests with operational conflict. Routing evidence shows that stronger control is directed toward conflicted requests rather than broadly applied to routine ones. Dialogue and tool-use profiles suggest that gains do not come from indiscriminate interaction expansion or broader tool chains; instead, added turns and tool calls support evidence gathering, write separation, and pre-write reconsideration. Case-level evidence shows that the escalated workflow preserves fallback plans, binds retrieved records to the correct action, sequences writes, and decomposes multi-entity requests. Airline results extend the same service-control logic to reservation operations.