mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

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

arXiv 2606.31307 ↗First posted 30 Jun 2026cs.CLcited by 0

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

Abstract (arXiv)

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.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 9 of its 13 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Jun 2026.

Builds on

9 of 13 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025The Behavior Gap: Evaluating Zero-shot LLM Agents in Complex Task-Oriented Dialogs13 Jun

Other references · 8

  1. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
  2. 2024Gemma 2: Improving Open Language Models at a Practical Sizecited by 1,998
  3. 2019Towards Scalable Multi-domain Conversational Agents: The Schema-Guided Dialogue Datasetcited by 434
  4. 2020MultiWOZ 2.2 : A Dialogue Dataset with Additional Annotation Corrections and State Tracking Baselinescited by 204
  5. 2023Are LLMs All You Need for Task-Oriented Dialogue?cited by 54
  6. 2026ReliabilityBench: Evaluating LLM Agent Reliability Under Production-Like Stress Conditionscited by 36
  7. 2025PALADIN: Self-Correcting Language Model Agents to Cure Tool-Failure Casescited by 22
  8. 2025Non-Collaborative User Simulators for Tool Agentscited by 18

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026ReIn: Conversational Error Recovery with Reasoning Inception
  2. 2026SAGE: State-Grounded, Abstention-Aware Evaluation of Task-Oriented Dialogue Agents
  3. 2025When Refusals Fail: Unstable Safety Mechanisms in Long-Context LLM Agents
  4. 2026Can Agents Forget When Asked? A Benchmark for Memory Unlearning in LLM Agents
  5. 2026When Users Change Their Minds: Measuring and Repairing Intent Drift in LLM Agents
  6. 2025Detect, Explain, Escalate: Sustainable Dialogue Breakdown Management for LLM Agents
  7. 2024Rewriting Conversational Utterances with Instructed Large Language Models
  8. 2025Improving Multi-turn Task Completion in Task-Oriented Dialog Systems via Prompt Chaining and Fine-Grained Feedback