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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.31307 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.31307/

## 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.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/agents/general-llm-agent-frameworks-and-benchmarks/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Gemma 2: Improving Open Language Models at a Practical Size](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.00118/) (2024)
- [Towards Scalable Multi-domain Conversational Agents: The Schema-Guided Dialogue Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.05855/) (2019)
- [MultiWOZ 2.2 : A Dialogue Dataset with Additional Annotation Corrections and State Tracking Baselines](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.12720/) (2020)
- [Are LLMs All You Need for Task-Oriented Dialogue?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.06556/) (2023)
- [ReliabilityBench: Evaluating LLM Agent Reliability Under Production-Like Stress Conditions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.06112/) (2026)
- [PALADIN: Self-Correcting Language Model Agents to Cure Tool-Failure Cases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.25238/) (2025)
- [Non-Collaborative User Simulators for Tool Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.23124/) (2025)
- [The Behavior Gap: Evaluating Zero-shot LLM Agents in Complex Task-Oriented Dialogs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.12266/) (2025)

## 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.