All four leading LLMs talk more than they listen to personality-verified synthetic help-seekers

Large language models are increasingly consulted at moments of distress, yet single-turn benchmarks neither test sustained exchanges nor distinguish between users. We built a personality-aware evaluation in which four widely used models advised several synthetic help-seekers, each given a psychometrically specified profile, in an acute crisis: a caregiver learning of a relative's dementia diagnosis. Auditors blind to the profile prompt recovered the specified bands from dialogue alone with high agreement on every instrument (ICC(2,4) = 0.91; 0.79-0.96 by instrument; band-score r = 0.78), as expected for the Big Five but equally for coping style, coping self-efficacy, resilience and reactance, which the lexical approach never covered. Such evaluation therefore reaches beyond the Five Factor Model to motivational, regulatory and self-appraisal dispositions. The four models were not distinguishable on emotion stabilisation and failed alike, sharing three modes: verbosity, a talk-to-listen ratio above one, and problem-solving before the situation had been explored.

Cross-Disciplinary Taxonomy and Modeling of Misunderstanding Generation, Amplification, and Detection, from Pragmatics to AI Agents

Detection of misunderstanding is an urgent problem to solve because communication has moved away from real-time, in-person interaction and is increasingly handled by AI-mediated channels. This shift cuts communicators off from the resources repair depends on faster than new means of detection are being built. In this paper we analyse misunderstanding as a layered process in which a divergence is generated, may then be amplified, and is either detected and repaired or left to persist unnoticed. Consolidating accounts from nine fields of research that do not ordinarily cite one another, we identify eleven exact failure modes and show that each operates at a specific point in a communicative process rather than anywhere within it. Those points give eight analytical layers, derived from the literature rather than adopted from an existing model. Eight of the mechanisms primarily generate a divergence, two primarily amplify one already present, and one governs whether a divergence is detected and repaired. We model the eight layers formally, extending information and communication theory from the transmission of signals to the reconstruction of meaning, and we supply a source-by-source evidence matrix that makes every rating auditable, a coding manual, and nine analysed dialogue cases. No prior classification of misunderstanding both locates mechanisms at points in the process and types them by function.

Illusion of Alignment: Detecting Hidden Disagreement in Collaborative Dialogue

Collaborative dialogue can end with apparent agreement while participants still differ on goals, assumptions, or execution plans, creating an \textbf{illusion of alignment (IoA)}. A real-user study across 18 meetings confirms that IoA arises routinely in human collaboration. Yet IoA poses a paradox: if participants were aware of such disagreements, they would already be explicit; if not, they cannot articulate them when asked, leaving IoA invisible to both participants and observers. In this work, we make IoA detectable by generating diagnostic multiple-choice questions whose divergent answers across participants provide direct behavioral evidence of hidden disagreement. We construct \textbf{IoA-Suite}, a dataset and evaluation protocol for detecting hidden disagreement, spanning five task types and six domains. We find that even the best model attains only 49.5\% F1, with the bottleneck traced to private context that the dialogue does not surface. We then train \textbf{IoA-Prober-8B} based on IoA-Suite, reaching 51.8\% F1 on IoA-Suite. Across the aforementioned 18 real meetings, it surfaces 2.89 hidden disagreements per meeting that participants confirm they had not voiced, transferring to live human dialogue. Further, in multi-agent collaboration, pairing IoA-Prober-8B with LLM agents improves downstream task performance on BigCodeBench-Hard and HiddenBench.

From GenAI Virtual Patient Dialogue Logs to Teacher-Interpretable Process Evidence: A Learning Analytics Study in Higher Education

Medical history taking is a dialogue-based clinical reasoning task in which learners must gather, organise, and integrate patient information while the consultation unfolds. Generative AI-powered virtual patients (GenAI VPs) make repeated history taking practice scalable and preserve full turn by turn dialogue. However, these logs are educationally difficult to use directly. Complete transcripts are too detailed for routine teacher review, whereas final scores obscure whether learners followed up patient cues, checked uncertainty, or used summaries to guide later questioning. This study examined whether coded GenAI VP dialogues can provide teacher-interpretable process evidence of clinical reasoning. We analysed 1{,}030 GenAI VP dialogues from 210 second-year medical learners across five weeks chest-pain cases. Each consultation was teacher-scored using a rubric assessing the full history taking dialogue, and consultations were classified within each week as high- or low-rated using the weekly median score. To explain how rated performance was reflected in the dialogue process, we applied three analytic layers to the same coded dialogue data: behavioural prevalence, local co-occurrence using Epistemic Network Analysis, and sequential transition using Transition Network Analysis. High-rated consultations involved more history taking activity, but differences were not simply about volume. High rated consultations more often connected information gathering and symptom exploration with communication, checking, organisation, and synthesis. Summarising and organising moves more often led to verification or mechanism-oriented follow-up. These findings show how layered analysis of GenAI VP dialogue logs can reveal process patterns associated with high rated history taking and support process-focused feedback in medical education.

Information Dynamics of Language Communication

Quantifying how meaning propagates through communicative exchanges remains underdeveloped in computational linguistics. Here we introduce an information-theoretic framework that quantifies the directed flow of semantic content between interlocutors and decomposes multi-source contributions into redundant, unique, and synergistic components. Our approach leverages large language models as probabilistic estimators of natural language to compute two measures: semantic transfer entropy (STE), which captures directed predictive influence between speakers, and semantic partial information decomposition (SPID), which resolves how multiple sources jointly shape a target's language. Across four experiments we show that the framework detects reduced information flow in cognitively rigid dialogue, captures the dominant role of persuaders in shaping discourse, distinguishes high- from low-quality psychotherapy by the directionality of therapist-client information exchange, and reveals synergistic premise contributions in argumentative essays. This framework opens new avenues for studying information dynamics in digital discourse, pedagogical interactions, clinical dialogues, and any domain in which the structure of linguistic exchange is of research relevance.

Bridging Talk and Thought: Understanding Dialogue Dynamics Across Collaborative Problem-Solving Contexts

We present a conceptual framework for analyzing dialogue in collaborative problem-solving contexts, with an emphasis on the emerging dynamics of human-AI and multi-agent collaboration. As intelligent systems become active agents capable of autonomous reasoning and strategic cooperation, understanding the dialogic interaction during collaborative problem solving is increasingly important for optimizing and evaluating such partnerships. Our framework addresses key limitations in current analytical approaches through a hierarchical two-layer coding scheme that integrates cognitive and non-cognitive problem solving with metacognitive regulatory mechanisms. We demonstrate its effectiveness and generalizability across nine datasets spanning multiple domains, and provide insights into how humans and agents coordinate their knowledge, skills, and efforts to solve complex problems, showing in particular that metacognitive regulation can be an essential discriminator of deeper collaboration.

Aligned but Not Partner-Specific: Distinguishing How Multimodal LLM Agents Succeed in Reference Games Without Human-Like Conventions

Repeated reference games test whether interlocutors replace their initially long descriptions with shorter, partner-specific conventions grounded in shared interaction history. Prior work shows that multimodal LLMs fail to become more efficient across rounds, although they align on the labels they use. How can we determine whether this alignment reflects partner-specific grounding rather than a shared task vocabulary? We address this question by comparing capable multimodal agent dyads with human dyads from the KTH Tangrams corpus. Our novel methodological contribution is a constrained pseudo-dyad baseline that matches the original referential task structure, but breaks partner history. This baseline enables us to test whether the observed label alignment depends on interaction with a specific partner. Across three analytic layers (task competence, description strategy, alignment dynamics), we find clear differences. Humans reduce effort through entrainment, compressing descriptions and increasing label alignment with partners. Agents instead maintain fixed effort levels, producing verbose descriptions from round one, with near-ceiling label overlap that is statistically indistinguishable between real and pseudo dyads. MLLMs thus achieve coordination without convention, succeeding by verbose description rather than by forming the compact, history-dependent referring expressions characteristic of human dialogue.