cs.CLFeb 19, 2026

ReIn: Conversational Error Recovery with Reasoning Inception

Authors: Takyoung Kim, Jinseok Nam, Chandrayee Basu, Xing Fan, Chengyuan Ma, Heng Ji, Gokhan Tur, Dilek Hakkani-Tür

Organizations: University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · Amazon

Abstract

Conversational agents powered by large language models (LLMs) with tool integration achieve strong performance on fixed task-oriented dialogue datasets but remain vulnerable to unanticipated, user-induced errors. Rather than focusing on error prevention, this work focuses on error recovery, which necessitates the accurate diagnosis of erroneous dialogue contexts and execution of proper recovery plans. Under realistic constraints precluding model fine-tuning or prompt modification due to significant cost and time requirements, we explore whether agents can recover from contextually flawed interactions and how their behavior can be adapted without altering model parameters and prompts. To this end, we propose Reasoning Inception (ReIn), a test-time intervention method that plants an initial reasoning into the agent's decision-making process. Specifically, an external inception module identifies predefined errors within the dialogue context and generates recovery plans, which are subsequently integrated into the agent's internal reasoning process to guide corrective actions, without modifying its parameters or system prompts. We evaluate ReIn by systematically simulating conversational failure scenarios that directly hinder successful completion of user goals: user's ambiguous and unsupported requests. Across diverse combinations of agent models and inception modules, ReIn substantially improves task success and generalizes to unseen error types. Moreover, it consistently outperforms explicit prompt-modification approaches, underscoring its utility as an efficient, on-the-fly method. In-depth analysis of its operational mechanism, particularly in relation to instruction hierarchy, indicates that jointly defining recovery tools with ReIn can serve as a safe and effective strategy for improving the resilience of conversational agents without modifying the backbone models or system prompts.

Figures & tables

Appendix figures & tables10 assets

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

Explore similar work

Oct 10, 2026

Where Did We Go Wrong? Localizing Errors to Repair Multi-Turn Conversations

Large language model (LLM) assistants are increasingly used in multi-turn conversations, where the user's intent is often unclear at first and revealed only gradually over time. The assistant must therefore interpret each exchange and form inferences about the user's intent, using them to update its working state. These updates usually refine the assistant's understanding, but a misinterpretation can instead corrupt its working state by ruling out the true intent, influencing subsequent turns and ultimately causing the conversation to fail. Efficient recovery then requires locating and revising the misinterpretation without discarding information that remains valid. We introduce Loci (Localization Of Corrupted Inferences), a framework for probabilistically localizing misinterpretations and selectively repairing the assistant's working state. Given an observed failure, Loci reasons over possible user intents and assigns each update a probability of having excluded the true intent. These probabilities rank suspected updates and quantify the model's confidence in the localization of the underlying misinterpretations. Loci then uses this information in a repair policy that decides whether to retain, verify, or remove suspected updates, enabling recovery from corrupted inferences while preserving useful information. To evaluate Loci's ability to identify misinterpretations, we first test it in a controlled setup with injected errors. We find that Loci improves localization over the baselines, with its advantage becoming larger when multiple errors occur. We then evaluate it in free-form conversations, where misinterpretations arise naturally, and measure the interactions needed to complete the task after an initial failure. Using localization confidence to guide repair, Loci reduces mean recovery cost by 46-79% relative to the strongest baseline across multiple domains.
Jun 30, 2026

When the Database Fails: Prompting LLM Dialogue Agents for Safe Recovery in Task-Oriented Dialogue

Large language models used in task-oriented dialogue often produce fluent but unsafe responses when backend database calls fail, return empty results, or surface mismatched information, inventing venues, confirmations, or booking details not grounded in the database. We study a lightweight prompting-based recovery approach that improves robustness without retraining or additional model calls. We compare three response strategies, including a guided recovery prompt conditioned on structured database status, across six open-weight model families (DeepSeek-R1, Gemma-2, Llama-3, Mistral, Phi-3, and Qwen-2.5) and four database conditions: empty result, wrong-domain retrieval, API error, and clean retrieval. Using fault-injected benchmarks built on two structurally different datasets, MultiWOZ 2.2 (5 domains) and SGD (20 domains), we find that naive agents hallucinate on 30.5% of failure turns on MultiWOZ and 20.9% on SGD. Our Guided-Retry strategy reduces hallucination by 50% on MultiWOZ (30.5 to 15.3%) and by 42% on SGD (20.9 to 12.2%) without retraining. However, residual hallucination remains substantial (6-37% across models), with wrong-domain failures the hardest case. Results are consistent across both datasets and all six model families, and human annotation shows substantial agreement while supporting the validity of the automatic commitment-safety metric.
Oct 27, 2026

When to Intervene? An Empirical Study of Errors and Self-Recovery in LLM Agents

LLM agents interact with Web services to perform tasks on users' behalf. Errors during these interactions can disrupt execution and prevent task completion, motivating external intervention. However, agents may self-recover through continued execution, raising the question of when to intervene and when to wait for self-recovery. We present an empirical study of errors and self-recovery in LLM agents. We construct ReInBench, a dataset containing 1,259 agent traces and 1,403 error events across computer-use and Web tasks. Our study examines how often and how quickly agents self-recover, how self-recovery relates to subsequent execution and task completion, and whether self-recovery can be predicted when an error occurs. We find that 725 error events self-recover, often within a few steps, with self-recovery performance differing across Execution LLMs. Self-recovery can also help agents recover from subsequent errors of the same type and support overall task completion. Intervention should therefore prioritize errors unlikely to self-recover, while allowing agents to continue when self-recovery is likely. Building on these empirical findings, we propose ReCoF, a method that predicts whether an error will self-recover to inform whether additional intervention is needed. ReCoF achieves an average relative improvement of 9.02% in Macro-F1 over the strongest baseline on ReInBench. Our code and data can be found at https://method-notes.github.io/ReCoF/.