The paper introduces the "convention gap" as a metric for measuring implicit communication in cooperative AI, defined as the difference between predicted failure probability from literal messages and observed failure rates. Using the card game Hanabi, the authors analyze 101,000 play actions from human-human, AI-AI, and human-AI datasets, finding a +26.2pp gap in human pairs, a -0.7pp gap in AI pairs, and a +16.4pp gap in human-AI pairs, with the largest gaps occurring on plays with no hints. The study shows that convention compatibility, rather than raw AI-AI performance, may better predict an AI’s effectiveness with human partners.
By Makoto Fukushima, Hua-Dong Xiong, Ehsan Moradi Pari
The study investigates how large language model (LLM) agents influence consensus formation in mixed human‑AI groups during a collaborative description game. Three regimes emerge: low agent proportions lead to human‑led consensus, intermediate proportions disrupt convergence, and high proportions produce strong, agent‑led consensus. The resulting consensus differs in semantic grounding and communicative form, with human‑led consensus being concrete and holistic, and agent‑led consensus being abstract and geometrically segmented.
By Lin Chen, Ziyi Liu, Xia Hu, Yong Li
The study investigates how humans and AI collaborate on a puzzle task, focusing on referential uncertainty—when a description could refer to multiple objects. It finds that eliciting a belief distribution over candidate pieces yields better calibration and discrimination than raw action probabilities, and that precise descriptions or well‑targeted hedges significantly reduce the acceptance of wrong placements. However, the AI rarely externalizes uncertainty, and poorly targeted hedges can be counterproductive.
By Christian Poelitz, Finale Doshi-Velez, Si\^an Lindley
The study investigates how large language models (LLMs) predict users’ decisions in human-agent dialogue by combining users’ statements with past decision records. Using 1,260 rounds of a repeated prisoner's dilemma with 42 users and five agents, the researchers found that decision records alone yielded strong predictive performance (AUC = 0.80), while adding dialogue did not improve overall accuracy but did increase agreement with users’ statements. However, predictions over‑emphasized statements, especially when users had not yet made a decision, and failed to capture variations in cooperation that depended on the specific agent or users’ trait alignment.
By Baiqiao Zhang, Shuai Ma, Zhifeng Liao, Chao Zhou, Jianshu Wang, Yuhan Zhao, Chaoyue Zhang, Tongjun Si, Yuying Tang, Xiangxian Li, Yong-Jin Liu, Yulong Bian
The study examines how large language models (LLMs) predict users’ decisions in human‑agent dialogue by combining users’ statements with past decision records. Using 1,260 rounds of a repeated prisoner's dilemma with 42 users and five agents, the researchers found that decision records alone yielded strong predictive accuracy (AUC = .80), while adding dialogue did not improve overall performance but did increase agreement with users’ statements. However, predictions over‑emphasized statements, especially when users had not yet made a decision, and failed to capture variations in cooperation that depended on the specific agent or users’ trait alignment.
arXiv:2609.24146v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Language model agents are increasingly used to simulate social interaction, and the resulting transcripts read as though the agents understand one anot...
By Cong Li, Cheng Chen, Thomas Fung, Alex Rossi, Yi Li