cs.AIAug 11, 2026

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

Authors: Babak Abbaschian

Organizations: University of Louisville

Read PDF
Ask AI
Cite

Copy citation

DOINot available for this paper

Abstract

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.

Explore similar work

CardsList
May 4, 2026

Are you with me? A Framework for Detecting Mental Model Discrepancies in Task-Based Team Dialogues

Humans typically use natural language to update teammates on task states. Since not all updates are communicated, discrepancies arise between the team members' mental models that negatively affect overall team performance. How can we categorize such discrepancies? Do misalignments detected in team dialogue predict future mental model misalignments? Traditional shared mental model (SMM) assessment methods rely on retrospective expert coding that cannot capture real-time coordination dynamics. We propose a framework to identify and categorize four types of mental model discrepancies: unsupported beliefs, false beliefs, belief contradictions, and omissions, all of which can naturally emerge in team dialogues. Using dialogues from twenty dyad teams performing collaborative object identification tasks across four sequential levels, we demonstrate that these discrepancy patterns contain predictive signals. Averaging historical discrepancy counts achieves meaningful prediction accuracy using uniform weighting as an exploratory baseline, with differential predictability across discrepancy types.

Katharine Kowalyshyn, Matthias Scheutz

Department of Computer Science, Tufts University

Cognitive Modeling
AskPDF
Oct 23, 2026

Understanding Communication Failures in Multi-Agent LLM Systems

Multi-agent LLM systems aim to improve reasoning through debate, evidence sharing, and mutual correction, but interaction can also introduce failures that final accuracy alone cannot explain. Agents may converge too early, ignore dissent, suppress correct minority answers, or preserve a wrong framing across rounds. We present a corpus-grounded taxonomy of communication failures, built from 3,211 failed multi-round trajectories across medical QA, coding, finance, multi-hop reasoning, ethics, and embodied text tasks. Using this taxonomy, we analyze failure distributions across datasets and system designs, round-level error dynamics, recovery hardness, majority transitions, minority-signal suppression, and self-reported confidence. We find that failures are dominated by recovery/correction and consensus/decision problems rather than isolated first-round mistakes, with many emerging after agents first observe peer responses. Based on these findings, we recommend stronger disagreement handling, evidence verification, minority-signal preservation, and recovery checks before finalization.

Priya Pitre, Jun Hou, Yi Fang +2

Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA

Multi-Agent LLM SystemsMulti-Agent CommunicationLLM Agent ReliabilityFailure Attribution for LLM AgentsMulti-Agent Consensus
AskPDF
May 26, 2026

Detection Without Correction: A Two-Parameter Decomposition of Multi-Stage LLM Pipelines

Multi-stage LLM pipelines that perform multi-agent debate, intrinsic self-correction, or retrieval-augmented verification exhibit puzzling aggregate behaviors: accuracy plateaus and reversals across rounds, non-replication of debate gains on contemporary frontier models, intrinsic self-correction degradation, and qualitative cross-provider divergence in debate dynamics. Downstream agent response can be operationalized as two coupled decisions: detection (whether to treat upstream content as authoritative) and conditional generation (what to produce if not). This decomposition yields four observable response regimes, of which detection-without-correction is the load-bearing failure mode. Across a nine-cell empirical grid spanning four model families, four benchmarks (GSM8K, MATH-500, GPQA-Diamond, AIME), and two methods (multi-agent debate, intrinsic self-correction), we find that the conditional miscorrection rate is consistently dominant (53-94% across cohorts) while detection rate varies contextually by more than an order of magnitude. The framework unifies the four phenomena above as signatures of a common mechanism and characterizes detection threshold as a stable model/protocol-level regularity that persists across methods at matched benchmark difficulty.

Prashanti Nilayam, Kiran Ramanna, Prashil Tumbade

Servicenow CA, USA

LLM Self-CorrectionLLM EvaluationLanguage Model Error DetectionMulti-Agent DebateLLM Agent Reliability
AskPDF