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.

Related

• MARCH: Evaluating the Intersection of Ambiguity Interpretation and Multi-hop Inference
• Theory of Mind in Action: The Instruction Inference Task in Dynamic Human-Agent Collaboration
• Learning When to Act or Refuse: Guarding Agentic Reasoning Models for Safe Multi-Step Tool Use
• Task Competence Is Not Instruction Following: Evaluating Instruction-Conflicting Behavior in Small Language Models

Source: arXiv cs.CL | 2026-08-21