arXiv Computation and Language By Natalia Bila, Kata Nasz\'adi, Alexandra Mayn, Christof Monz

When Contextual Inference Fails: Cancelability in Interactive Instruction Following

Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →

arXiv:2603. 19997v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: We investigate the separation of literal interpretation from contextual inference in a collaborative block-building tasks, where an agent must resolve underspecified instructions using context.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Computation and Language.

arXiv Computation and Language
4d ago

BASIS: Evaluating Belief-Aware Solutions in Interactive Settings beyond Instructions

BASIS is a benchmark that tests large language model agents on their ability to infer users’ mental states, detect belief‑reality mismatches, and use this insight to craft better solutions in interactive settings. The study shows that current models often ignore users’ mental states, leading to poorer outcomes, while explicitly eliciting and incorporating such information improves solution quality. Additional experiments compare BASIS with Chain‑of‑Thought prompting, targeted training, and multi‑agent collaboration to demonstrate the practical benefits of mental‑state awareness.

By Minyuan Ruan, Ziyue Wang, Kaiming Liu, Yunghwei Lai, Peng Li, Yang Liu
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Aug 20

Hear2Act: Benchmarking When Prosody Should Change What an Assistant Does

Prosodic cues can convey task-relevant information that alters the trajectory and outcome of a task-oriented dialogue, even when the words themselves remain unchanged. Yet existing benchmarks typically evaluate prosodic perception, response appropriateness, and task-oriented dialogue in isolation, making it difficult to test whether prosodic evidence changes downstream decisions.

arXiv AI
Aug 28

When Text Misleads: Inconsistent-Aware Reasoning for Audio-Grounded Dialogue

The paper introduces ContraTalk, a benchmark that tests whether dialogue models truly use acoustic cues or rely on transcript shortcuts. It formalizes cross‑modal disagreement, creates conflict and consistent QA examples, and proposes an Audio Twin representation to expose acoustic evidence to models. Experiments show that while text‑only LLMs perform well on consistent cases, they falter on conflict cases, and AudioLLMs only partially mitigate this issue.

By Yen-Ju Lu, Yuzhe Wang, Yaohan Guan, Xiluo He, Jiarui Hai, Mingrui Liang, Kaavya Chaparala, Thomas Thebaud, Laureano Moro-Velazquez, Najim Dehak, Jesus Villalba