ReIn: Conversational Error Recovery with Reasoning Inception
Takyoung Kim, Jinseok Nam, Chandrayee Basu, Xing Fan, Chengyuan Ma, Heng Ji, Gokhan Tur, Dilek Hakkani-T\"ur

TL;DR
ReIn introduces a test-time intervention method that enhances conversational error recovery in large language models by integrating an external reasoning module, improving task success without altering model parameters or prompts.
Contribution
This work presents ReIn, a novel approach for conversational error recovery that operates without fine-tuning or prompt modification, using an external inception module to identify errors and generate recovery plans.
Findings
ReIn significantly improves task success in simulated failure scenarios.
It outperforms prompt-modification approaches in error recovery.
ReIn generalizes well to unseen error types.
Abstract
Conversational agents powered by large language models (LLMs) with tool integration achieve strong performance on fixed task-oriented dialogue datasets but remain vulnerable to unanticipated, user-induced errors. Rather than focusing on error prevention, this work focuses on error recovery, which necessitates the accurate diagnosis of erroneous dialogue contexts and execution of proper recovery plans. Under realistic constraints precluding model fine-tuning or prompt modification due to significant cost and time requirements, we explore whether agents can recover from contextually flawed interactions and how their behavior can be adapted without altering model parameters and prompts. To this end, we propose Reasoning Inception (ReIn), a test-time intervention method that plants an initial reasoning into the agent's decision-making process. Specifically, an external inception module…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Poster
1. The paper identifies an practically important problem: error recovery under realistic operational constraints that prohibit model fine-tuning and prompt modification. 2. The writing is clear and concise. REIN's mechanism is clearly formalized with Algorithm 1 providing precise implementation details.
1. This paper only evaluates six predefined error types across two domains (airline, retail), representing only a small fraction of real-world conversational failures. 2. The evaluation heavily relies on LLM as judge. It lacks human study/evaluation of recovery quality, conversational naturalness, or user satisfaction.
- **Structured Framework with Theory**: Provides systematic error classification across 6 types under 2 categories (ambiguous vs unsupported requests). Goes beyond empirical results to explore theoretical grounding through instruction hierarchy analysis, showing how proper tool definitions enable safe bypass for error recovery purposes. - **Verified Cross-Model Generalization**: Tests the approach across diverse models (Claude, Mistral, Llama) in both agent and inception roles. Includes explicit
- **Synthetic Data Reliability and Limited Coverage**: - **Oversimplified scenarios**: Error contexts are LLM-generated rather than from real users. Real humans produce messier, more varied, and less structured errors. The synthetic generation process likely filters out the complex edge cases that actually break production systems. - **Short conversation bias**: Only 3-turn initial contexts tested despite user simulator instability in longer dialogues. Real customer service routinely han
REIN addresses a highly practical and underexplored challenge in LLM-based conversational systems: recovery from user-induced errors during multi-turn interactions. It introduces a novel and lightweight test-time intervention that avoids prompt or parameter modification, a major benefit for commercial or constrained deployment settings. The core innovation—injecting reasoning plans as think[...] steps through a tool interface—is conceptually elegant and technically compatible with instruction hi
While REIN is a valuable and thoughtfully executed contribution, there are a few areas where the current study could be expanded or improved. First, REIN depends on a predefined taxonomy of error types and their corresponding recovery strategies. This reliance introduces a knowledge engineering bottleneck: new domains or emerging failure modes may require manual updates to the error library and inception prompt. Although the method generalizes to some unseen errors, its ability to adapt autonomo
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsTopic Modeling · Speech and dialogue systems · AI in Service Interactions
