MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7147473727 · doi:10.1145/3769872.3769887

What is Jiaozi: Exploring User Control of Language Style in Multilingual Conversational Agents

2025· article· W7147473727 on OpenAlexaff
J. Zhu, Jian Zhao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in Service Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl (management)Style (visual arts)MultilingualismFormative assessmentWork (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent advances in language models have significantly expanded the capabilities of AI-powered conversational agents. Nonetheless, current technology is still primarily designed with monolingual English speakers in mind, overlooking the need of more personalized agents by multilingual users. Particularly, prior work showed that multilingual individuals preferred conversational agents that accommodate their desired multilingual style. However, these approaches rely on probabilistic methods to automatically determine the agent’s multilingual style, which often fails to align with the needs of multilingual users, as their preferences are nuanced, ad hoc, and difficult to predict. In our work, we explore user control of multilingual style as a step toward developing a mixed-initiative multilingual conversational agent tailored to the needs of multilingual users. We first derived design considerations and dimensions of user control from a formative study with 10 participants. Next, we implemented Mirrios, a prototypical conversational system with multilingual style control, and used it as a probe to conduct an user study with 12 participants. We identified preferred designs for multilingual style control and found that this control reduced the need to constrain language habits, accommodated ad hoc language needs, and enabled more personalized interactions with conversational agents. Based on our findings, we propose design implications to inform the design of multilingual style control and future mixed-initiative multilingual conversational agents.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAI in Service InteractionsFrench-language works237,207