Toward Measuring Structural Drift in LLM Communication Loops

Wael Hafez; Amir Nazeri; Chenan Wei

cs.CLMar 18, 2026

Toward Measuring Structural Drift in LLM Communication Loops

Authors: Wael Hafez, Amir Nazeri, Chenan Wei

Abstract

Large language models increasingly run in stateful pipelines that assemble each prompt from retrieval, memory, tools, and other agents. Such pipelines drift: information that should shape the next response is dropped, compressed, or misrouted while every component still reports success. Existing diagnostics miss this because they evaluate isolated prompts, responses, or task scores, whereas what decouples is the relation between a prompt and the response it draws. Here we show that treating the prompt to response to next prompt chain as the fundamental unit of analysis makes these relations measurable. We introduce structural communication coherence, quantified by two metrics: communication closure, which asks if what the pipeline returns at one turn matches what it faces next, and normalized conditional action contribution, which measures how much a sent message resolves the subsequent reply. Across 2,171 human to human, 58 human to LLM, and 8 LLM to LLM dialogues, these metrics reveal directional interaction structures; crucially, the measured contribution drops by 87 to 92% when a response is swapped for one from another turn, leaving surrounding prompts untouched. Because this approach requires no labels, healthy reference data, or predefined rules only the raw prompts and responses drift can be defined and measured directly from operational traffic, rather than inferred from eventual task failure. Establishing prospective detection performance is the next step.

Explore similar work

May 19, 2026cs.CL

Less Back-and-Forth: A Comparative Study of Structured Prompting

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used for open-ended tasks, but underspecified prompts can lead to low-quality answers and additional interaction. This paper studies whether structured prompt design improves response quality while reducing user effort. We compare three prompt conditions: a raw prompt, a checklist-improved prompt, and a clarifying-question prompt. We evaluate these conditions across four task types--summarization, planning, explanation, and coding--using three LLM systems: ChatGPT, Claude, and Grok. Each output is scored with a unified rubric covering task completion, correctness, compliance, and clarity. Checklist-improved prompts achieved the highest mean rubric score, 7.50 out of 8, compared with 5.67 for raw prompts and 6.67 for clarifying-question prompts. Checklist prompts also produced the best quality-effort tradeoff, using fewer average tokens than both raw and clarifying prompts. These results suggest that a simple prompt checklist can improve LLM responses while reducing unnecessary interaction.

Saurav Ghosh, Gabriella Polach, Abdou Sow

Large Language Model Responses Prompt Engineering Responses Summarization Comparison

Ask PDF

May 10, 2026cs.CL

Beyond Continuity: Challenges of Context Switching in Multi-Turn Dialogue with LLMs

Users interacting with Large Language Models (LLMs) in a multi-turn conversation routinely refine their requests or pivot to new topics. LLMs, however, often miss these topic shifts and carry over irrelevant context from previous turns, leading to inaccurate responses. In this paper, we stress-test the multi-turn understanding of LLMs and study the following two sub-tasks: (1) detecting whether the user pivots or refines in the current turn, and (2) shortlisting relevant context from previous turns. To this end, we construct synthetic benchmarks based on real-world datasets from varied domains, as to simulate context shifts of different levels of difficulty. We then evaluate the zero-shot performance of ten LLMs (open-weight, closed-source and reasoning), and demonstrate that only some reasoning and strongly instructed LLMs are accurate in detecting pivots; open-weight LLMs struggle with the task and frequently carry stale context even with explicit cues; and all models suffer from a position bias. Based on the results, we discuss key takeaways for improving long-term robustness in multi-turn capabilities for LLMs.

Aditya Sinha, Harald Steck, Vito Ostuni +1

Multi-Turn Conversations Large Language Model Performance

Ask PDF

Sep 2, 2025cs.CL

LLMs and their Limited Theory of Mind: Evaluating Mental State Annotations in Situated Dialogue

What if large language models could not only infer human mindsets but also expose every blind spot in team dialogue such as discrepancies in the team members' joint understanding? We present a novel, two-step framework that leverages large language models (LLMs) both as human-style annotators of team dialogues to track the team's shared mental models (SMMs) and as automated discrepancy detectors among individuals' mental states. In the first step, an LLM generates annotations by identifying SMM elements within task-oriented dialogues from the Cooperative Remote Search Task (CReST) corpus. Then, a secondary LLM compares these LLM-derived annotations and human annotations against gold-standard labels to detect and characterize divergences. We define an SMM coherence evaluation framework for this use case and apply it to six CReST dialogues, ultimately producing: (1) a dataset of human and LLM annotations; (2) a reproducible evaluation framework for SMM coherence; and (3) an empirical assessment of LLM-based discrepancy detection. Our results reveal that, although LLMs exhibit apparent coherence on straightforward natural-language annotation tasks, they systematically err in scenarios requiring spatial reasoning or disambiguation of prosodic cues.

Katharine Kowalyshyn, Matthias Scheutz

Narrative Coherence Dialogue Discrepancy

Ask PDF