aiqbench analysis
This study reveals a critical gap in large language models where they can cognitively assess speaker reliability but fail to act on it during interactive tasks. The research highlights suboptimal behaviors like over-clarification or guessing under uncertainty, offering new benchmarks for evaluating contextual reasoning and partner adaptation in AI agents.
When Contextual Inference Fails: Cancelability in Interactive Instruction Following
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. We adapt an existing two-speaker psycholinguistic paradigm into an interactive benchmark called Build What I Mean (BWIM). This setup contrasts a pragmatically cooperative speaker with one who is only literally reliable. In BWIM, models face underspecified instructions and must choose between making a contextual inference or requesting clarification at a small communication cost. Evaluating several state-of-the-art LLMs, we find a clear dissociation between judgment and action. Although models successfully detect speaker unreliability in explicit confidence ratings, they fail to leverage this awareness when taking action. Instead of deploying efficient clarification strategies, models default to suboptimal behaviors. These include partner-blind over-clarification and question-averse guessing under uncertainty. BWIM provides a controlled environment to evaluate online partner adaptation and contextual reasoning in interactive settings.
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. We adapt an existing two-speaker psycholinguistic paradigm into an interactive benchmark called Build What I Mean (BWIM). This setup contrasts a pragmatically cooperative speaker with one who is only literally reliable. In BWIM, models face underspecified instructions and must choose between making a contextual inference or requesting clarification at a small communication cost. Evaluating several state-of-the-art LLMs, we find a clear dissociation between judgment and action. Although models successfully detect speaker unreliability in explicit confidence ratings, they fail to leverage this awareness when taking action. Instead of deploying efficient clarification strategies, models default to suboptimal behaviors. These include partner-blind over-clarification and question-averse guessing under uncertainty. BWIM provides a controlled environment to evaluate online partner adaptation and contextual reasoning in interactive settings.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2603.19997 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2603.19997v2 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.19997 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 238 words
Related coverage

Game Design Creativity evals
LessWrong · Oct 12, 2026

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · Oct 3, 2026

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · Sep 10, 2026
J++ Lens: Jacobian Filtering Enables More Faithful Workspace Lenses
LessWrong · Oct 8, 2026