Establishing common ground, a shared set of beliefs and mutually recognized facts, is fundamental to collaboration, yet remains a challenge for current AI systems, especially in multimodal, multiparty settings, where the collaborators bring different information to the table. We introduce the Distributed Partial Information Puzzle (DPIP), a collaborative construction task that elicits rich multimodal communication under epistemic asymmetry. We present a multimodal dataset of these interactions, annotated and temporally aligned across speech, gesture, and action modalities to support reasoning over propositional content and belief dynamics. We then evaluate two paradigms for modeling common ground (CG): (1) state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs), prompted to infer shared beliefs from multimodal updates, and (2) an axiomatic pipeline grounded in Dynamic Epistemic Logic (DEL) that incrementally performs the same task. Results on the annotated DPIP data indicate that it poses a challenge to modern LLMs' abilities to track both task progression and belief state.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: A builder and 3 directors participating in the DPIP task with a partially-completed structure on the table. Director 1 (second from left) is indicating the position of a block using a gesture as well as a speech act.
Figure 2: 3 individual side views of the same complete structure, each assigned to a director.
Ave
SD
Ave*
SD*
Min
Max
Max*
Total
Task Time (s.)
703.53
903.48
423.52
190.43
159.82
3223.60
800.40
7035.32
# Utterances
311.20
397.90
190.33
117.34
38
1399
350
3112
# Actions
47.90
48.34
33.00
11.48
19
182
53
479
# Gestures
27.80
19.74
22.56
11.35
7
75
37
278
# Props
30.70
15.54
26.44
8.23
18
69
40
307
# Tokens
1302.70
1442.70
860.44
375.71
350
5283
1517
13027
Table 1: Summary statistics of 10 annotated DPIP Lego task groups. *Indicates statistics excluding outlier group (Sec. 3.2 ).
Group
3
4
5
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
Ave
Speech
1.000
0.979
1.000
0.990
1.000
1.000
0.832
1.000
0.908
1.000
0.971
Structure
0.826
0.943
0.901
0.939
1.000
0.587
0.924
0.890
0.916
1.000
0.893
Gesture (union)
0.578
0.540
0.638
0.507
0.568
0.542
0.526
0.378
0.452
0.222
0.495
Gesture (intersection)
0.944
0.882
0.839
0.854
0.853
0.795
0.793
0.806
0.886
0.800
0.845
Table 2: Inter-annotator agreement (IAA) scores by modality across 10 groups.
Actions → Structure
Group
3
4
5
9
10
11
12
13
14
μ
SD
Llama 3.2-3B
Average
0.173
0.202
0.170
0.275
0.157
0.402
0.259
0.134
0.200
0.219
0.078
Global
0.000
0.037
0.056
0.056
0.000
0.148
0.074
0.037
0.037
0.049
0.042
Qwen3-4B
Average
0.185
0.193
0.232
0.457
0.235
0.392
0.276
0.251
0.264
0.276
0.085
Global
0.037
0.000
0.148
0.185
0.074
0.148
0.148
0.037
0.185
0.107
0.066
GPT-5-mini / GPT-5
Average
0.343
0.270
0.308
0.633
0.254
0.561
0.333
0.362
0.378
0.382
0.122
Global
0.133
0.148
0.000
0.482
0.000
0.222
0.000
0.000
0.444
0.159
0.180
Table 3: Results in four experimental conditions for all models, methods, and metrics (DSC).
Aligned → Structure
Llama 3.2-3B
Qwen3 -4B
GPT-5-mini / GPT-5
Average
0.040
0.066
0.007
Global
0.182
0.298
0.055
CGC → Structure
Average
0.250
Global
0.226
Aligned → CGC
Llama 3.2-3B
Qwen3 -4B
GPT-5-mini / GPT-5
Table 4: DSC Results in three experimental conditions for outlier group, Group 7.