Controlling AI Agent Participation in Group Conversations: A Human-Centered Approach
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Conversational AI agents are commonly applied within single-user, turn-taking scenarios. The interaction mechanics of these scenarios are trivial: when the user enters a message, the AI agent produces a response. However, the interaction dynamics are more complex within group settings. How should an agent behave in these settings? We report on two experiments aimed at uncovering users' experiences of an AI agent's participation within a group, in the context of group ideation (brainstorming). In the first study, participants benefited from and preferred having the AI agent in the group, but participants disliked when the agent seemed to dominate the conversation and they desired various controls over its interactive behaviors. In the second study, we created functional controls over the agent's behavior, operable by group members, to validate their utility and probe for additional requirements. Integrating our findings across both studies, we developed a taxonomy of controls for when, what, and where a conversational AI agent in a group should respond, who can control its behavior, and how those controls are specified and implemented. Our taxonomy is intended to aid AI creators to think through important considerations in the design of mixed-initiative conversational agents.
Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 28 Jan 2025.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 6; 2026: 6.
12 papers.
- 2025Characterizing LLM-driven Social Network: The Chirper.ai Casecited by 9
- 2025Multi-Party Conversational Agents: A Surveycited by 6
- 2025ProMediate: A Socio-cognitive framework for evaluating proactive agents in multi-party negotiationcited by 2
- 2025MURMUR: Using cross-user chatter to break collaborative language agents in groupscited by 2
- 2025Botender: Supporting Communities in Collaboratively Designing AI Agents through Case-Based Provocationscited by 1
- 2026Human-Human-AI Triadic Programming: Uncovering the Role of AI Agent and the Value of Human Partner in Collaborative Learningcited by 1
- 2025Computer Vision for Objects used in Group Work: Challenges and Opportunitiescited by 0
- 2026Exploring Teachers' Perspectives on Using Conversational AI Agents for Group Collaborationcited by 0
- 2026The Triadic Loop: A Framework for Negotiating Alignment in AI Co-hosted Livestreamingcited by 0
- 2026TIDES: A Longitudinal Bilingual Dataset for Modeling Multi-Party Social Dynamicscited by 0
- 2026Live Assistant: Learning Whether, When, and Whom to Assist in Real-World Live Social Streamscited by 0
- 2026LLMs are General Asynchronous Agentscited by 0
- 2026LLMs are General Asynchronous Agents28 Sep 2026
- 2026Live Assistant: Learning Whether, When, and Whom to Assist in Real-World Live Social Streams23 Sep 2026
- 2026TIDES: A Longitudinal Bilingual Dataset for Modeling Multi-Party Social Dynamics3 Aug 2026
- 2026The Triadic Loop: A Framework for Negotiating Alignment in AI Co-hosted Livestreaming20 Apr 2026
- 2026Exploring Teachers' Perspectives on Using Conversational AI Agents for Group Collaboration6 Feb 2026
- 2026Human-Human-AI Triadic Programming: Uncovering the Role of AI Agent and the Value of Human Partner in Collaborative Learning17 Jan 2026
- 2025MURMUR: Using cross-user chatter to break collaborative language agents in groups21 Nov 2025
- 2025ProMediate: A Socio-cognitive framework for evaluating proactive agents in multi-party negotiation29 Oct 2025
- 2025Botender: Supporting Communities in Collaboratively Designing AI Agents through Case-Based Provocations29 Sep 2025
- 2025Computer Vision for Objects used in Group Work: Challenges and Opportunities30 Jun 2025
- 2025Multi-Party Conversational Agents: A Survey24 May 2025
- 2025Characterizing LLM-driven Social Network: The Chirper.ai Case14 Apr 2025