Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Despite their pervasiveness, current text-based conversational agents (chatbots) are predominantly monolingual, while users are often multilingual. It is well-known that multilingual users mix languages while interacting with others, as well as in their interactions with computer systems (such as query formulation in text-/voice-based search interfaces and digital assistants). Linguists refer to this phenomenon as code-mixing or code-switching. Do multilingual users also prefer chatbots that can respond in a code-mixed language over those which cannot? In order to inform the design of chatbots for multilingual users, we conduct a mixed-method user-study (N=91) where we examine how conversational agents, that code-mix and reciprocate the users' mixing choices over multiple conversation turns, are evaluated and perceived by bilingual users. We design a human-in-the-loop chatbot with two different code-mixing policies -- (a) always code-mix irrespective of user behavior, and (b) nudge with subtle code-mixed cues and reciprocate only if the user, in turn, code-mixes. These two are contrasted with a monolingual chatbot that never code-mixed. Users are asked to interact with the bots, and provide ratings on perceived naturalness and personal preference. They are also asked open-ended questions around what they (dis)liked about the bots. Analysis of the chat logs, users' ratings, and qualitative responses reveal that multilingual users strongly prefer chatbots that can code-mix. We find that self-reported language proficiency is the strongest predictor of user preferences. Compared to the Always code-mix policy, Nudging emerges as a low-risk low-gain policy which is equally acceptable to all users. Nudging as a policy is further supported by the observation that users who rate the code-mixing bot higher typically tend to reciprocate the language mixing pattern of the bot. These findings present a first step towards developing conversational systems that are more human-like and engaging by virtue of adapting to the users' linguistic style.
Bawa et al. (Thu,) studied this question.