Dialogue Context Control for LLM Task-Oriented Process Flows

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing AI systems lack effective methods for task-oriented dialogue management that can handle complex user interactions, including deviations from scripted conversations and ensure adherence to predefined computational logic.

Innovation Solution

A system and method for task-oriented dialogue with in-context learning, utilizing a large language model (LLM) to interpret user inputs within the context of defined computing process flows, enabling dialogue understanding and automatic conversation repair.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Loss of information

If traditional NLU systems are used to interpret user messages in isolation, then the system can process individual messages, but it cannot understand the greater context of back-and-forth conversations

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecontext informationVSAvoiddialogue understanding system
Core Design Contradiction:
Loss of informationVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system transitions from processing single messages in isolation to processing multi-turn dialogue sequences by adding the temporal dimension of conversation history. The LLM receives the current user message along with the full dialogue context, enabling it to understand references, pronouns, and intent that depend on previous turns.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #17Another dimension (Dimensionality change)

Solution Approach 2:

The system pre-processes and structures the dialogue history before presenting it to the LLM. Conversation turns are organized with speaker labels and timestamps, and the context is prepared in advance to guide the LLM's interpretation of the current message within the proper conversational framework.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

2Adaptability or versatility

If fixed intent lists are used in NLU systems, then the system has clear classification boundaries, but it cannot generate new intents or adapt to user goals dynamically

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveintent recognitionVSAvoidcommand generation
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system changes the fundamental parameter of intent representation from fixed categorical labels to generated command sequences. Instead of mapping user messages to predetermined intents, the LLM generates natural language commands that reflect the user's actual goals, allowing dynamic adaptation while maintaining reliability through the structured command format.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Solution Approach 2:

The LLM autonomously determines what commands to generate based on the dialogue context and user message, without requiring pre-defined intent categories. The system serves itself by having the model generate both the interpretation and the appropriate command sequence, adapting to new user goals as they emerge in conversation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

3Ease of operation

If LLM generates free-form text output, then the system has high flexibility in response, but it risks hallucination and increased latency

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveresponse flexibilityVSAvoidoutput accuracy
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system changes the output parameter from free-form text generation to constrained command sequence generation. The LLM is prompted to output specific command formats (e.g., 'collect', 'inform', 'confirm') rather than free-form text, which reduces hallucination while maintaining the flexibility to handle diverse user requests through the rich command language.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

4Adaptability or versatility

If comprehensive dialogue understanding is implemented, then the system can handle complex user interactions, but it increases token generation cost and latency

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedialogue handling capabilityVSAvoidprocessing latency
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system segments the dialogue understanding task into distinct components: context analysis, intent recognition, command generation, and flow management. The LLM focuses on generating commands rather than producing full responses, dividing the computational work between the model and the deterministic flow execution engine, thereby reducing token generation requirements and latency.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Data Source

PatentEP4650986A1Computing process flow control via determination of dialogue context between a user and an artificial intelligence assistant
Publication Date: 2025.11.19 RASA TECHNOLOGIES INC
  • EP4650986A1 patent drawingFigure 1A
  • EP4650986A1 patent drawingFigure 1B
  • EP4650986A1 patent drawingFigure 2

AI summary

Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on computer storage media for computing process flow control via determination of dialogue context between a user and an artificial intelligence assistant. Multiple defined computing process flows are received by the system. Each of the defined computing process flows describe one or more instructions to be performed. Information about the defined computing process flows and dialogue between the user and the artificial intelligence assistant are provided as a prompt to a large language model (LLM). The system receives from the LLM one or more selected commands for a defined computing process flow relating to the context of the received input from the user. The system performs the command as to the computing process flow.