mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Agentic AI and Human-in-the-Loop Interventions: Field Experimental Evidence from Alibaba's Customer Service Operations

arXiv 2605.14830 ↗First posted 14 May 2026cs.HCcited by 3

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks

Abstract (arXiv)

Agentic AI systems that autonomously perform service tasks are entering customer service operations. However, limited evidence exists on how human interventions shape service outcomes when agentic AI failures create both cognitive and emotional consequences. We study this issue through a randomized field experiment on Alibaba's Taobao platform. Workers in the treatment condition supervised an agentic AI system that resolved AI-eligible chats while continuing to handle AI-ineligible chats, whereas control workers resolved all chats without agentic AI. The findings show that AI deployment reduces average chat duration and has limited effects on retrial rates, but substantially lowers ratings for AI-eligible chats. Moreover, human intervention effectiveness in AI-eligible chats depends on the nature of AI failure, post-escalation intervention effort, and intervention timing. Human intervention preserves service quality in algorithm-triggered technical escalations, i.e., unresolved customer issues beyond the AI's capability, but is less effective in algorithm-triggered emotional escalations, i.e., where customers express frustration or dissatisfaction. These differences are partly explained by variation in workers' post-escalation intervention effort across escalation types. In algorithm-triggered emotional escalations, workers showed lower engagement: they sent fewer messages, contributed a smaller share of total chat rounds, and showed less proactivity in information seeking and solution provision. We further find that early intervention is essential for sustaining high post-escalation intervention effort. Finally, we document a positive spillover effect on AI-ineligible chats, as treated workers adapted their multitasking workflow to devote greater attention to these chats. These findings offer implications for human-in-the-loop process design in human-AI collaboration systems.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 0 of its 6 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 May 2026.

Builds on

0 of 6 references.

No references here yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.

3 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025HumanAgencyBench: Scalable Evaluation of Human Agency Support in AI Assistants
  2. 2026Agentic AI and Occupational Displacement: A Multi-Regional Task Exposure Analysis of Emerging Labor Market Disruption
  3. 2026Preregistration for Experiments with AI Agents
  4. 2026Imperfectly Cooperative Human-AI Interactions: Comparing the Impacts of Human and AI Attributes in Simulated and User Studies
  5. 2025Architecting Human-AI Cocreation for Technical Services -- Interaction Modes and Contingency Factors
  6. 2025Human aversion? Do AI Agents Judge Identity More Harshly Than Performance
  7. 2026From Information to Delegation: Mapping Human-AI Financial Decision Making
  8. 2026Caring Without Feeling: Affective Dynamics as the Control Layer of Human-AI Agent Collaboration