Get started

arXiv preprint ·

Faithful Where It Can Be Checked: Auditing a Reflection Agent Against Its System Prompt in a Randomized Trial

Subigya K. Nepal, Serena Soh, Noah Vinoya, SoHyun Park, Mahnaz Roshanaei and Gabriella Harari

Published
Source
arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
Original
Read it at arXiv
Topics
Human-Computer InteractionComputers & Society

Abstract

Conversational agents are increasingly used to guide reflection. A recent randomized trial compared a GPT-4o career reflection agent with the same program in a static journaling survey. Agent participants ended less committed to their career plans and more doubtful. We coded all 17,930 turns from its two studies, checked our coding against human coders and linked conversations to the trial's surveys. The rules the agent followed were the easy-to-check ones, like a reply length cap. Told not to flatter, it praised participants in half of its turns; told to challenge gently, it almost never did, and such a break leaves no visible trace. The behavior tied to the worse outcome was the demand to decide: the survey posed each decision once, while the agent asked again when participants hesitated, and those pressed most ended most doubtful. Our findings inform reflection agent design and the writing of checkable instructions.

The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.

Read it on ReadSearch

Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.

Already a reader? Sign in

All new papers in Human-Computer Interaction

Get the few papers worth your time in Human-Computer Interaction every morning.

ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.

Get startedHow it works

Papers belong to their authors and publishers; every page here links to the original. All research topics