arxiv:2609.18011
Published on Sep 16
· Submitted by
Nan Li on Sep 17
· NLP Group at Utrecht University
Upvote
30
Authors:
Nan Li ,
,
Abstract
In collaborative tasks with asymmetric information, participants coordinate their understanding through interaction. We ask whether gaze provides evidence about grounding across two such tasks. Working from discrete behavioral annotations, we map HCRC MapTask (Anderson et al., 1991) and MUNDEX (Türk et al., 2023) into a shared partner/task/away vocabulary and compute gaze features around task-relevant dialogue units. In both corpora, aligned reference interpretations (MapTask) and UND (understood) judgments (MUNDEX) are associated with more task-directed gaze and with less partner-directed gaze, lower gaze entropy, and fewer gaze transitions. The associations are clearest for the participant leading the task: in giver-produced references, and in explainer judgments, which also co-vary with the explainee's gaze. In same-speaker MapTask reference chains, the speaker's gaze entropy is lower at the mention where a previously non-aligned referent becomes aligned. The best gaze feature groups improve modestly over controls under grouped cross-validation: temporal features in MapTask and raw proportions in MUNDEX. Because effects are small and several weaken when recurring participants rather than dialogues are the unit of inference, we treat gaze as one contributing cue to grounding, to be interpreted alongside task and dialogue context.
View arXiv page View PDF GitHub 0 Add to collection
Community
Paper author Paper submitter 6 days ago
In collaborative tasks with asymmetric information — maps with different landmarks, or a board game only one side knows — mutual understanding has to be built through the interaction, and gaze is one of the few observable traces of that process. We compare two such tasks: HCRC MapTask, where perspectivist labels mark a reference as aligned only when speaker and addressee interpretations match, and MUNDEX, German game explanations with retrospective understanding judgments from both sides. Both annotate gaze as discrete behavioral categories rather than eye-tracking coordinates, but with different category sets (up/down/off; partner/table/away), so we map them into a shared partner/task/away vocabulary and compute gaze features around each grounding-labeled unit.
The associations point the same way in both: aligned references and "understood" judgments come with more task-directed gaze, less partner-directed gaze, lower gaze entropy, and fewer gaze transitions — clearest for whoever leads the task (givers, explainers). In same-speaker MapTask reference chains, speaker gaze entropy drops at the mention where a referent becomes aligned. Effects are small and prediction gains over role/condition controls are modest, so we read gaze as one contributing cue to grounding rather than a standalone signal. Because the representation only needs discrete gaze labels, it should port to other corpora — happy to discuss, especially whether shared category names pick out the same interactional function across quite different tasks.
5 days ago
This is an automated message from the Librarian Bot. I found the following papers similar to this paper.
The following papers were recommended by the Semantic Scholar API
-
Negation Beyond the Verbal Channel: Temporal Multimodal Correlates in Dialogue (2026)
-
Do Visual Features Improve Other-Initiated Repair Detection? A Dyadic Multimodal Approach (2026)
-
TurnBench: A Multi-Domain Benchmark for Turn-Taking Dynamics in Spoken Dialogue (2026)
-
Using Semantic Uncertainty to Estimate Transition Relevance in Turn-taking (2026)
-
Illusion of Alignment: Detecting Hidden Disagreement in Collaborative Dialogue (2026)
Please give a thumbs up to this comment if you found it helpful!
If you want recommendations for any Paper on HF Mirror checkout this Space
You can directly ask Librarian Bot for paper recommendations by tagging it in a comment: @librarian-bot recommend
Upload images, audio, and videos by dragging in the text input, pasting, or clicking here.
Tap or paste here to upload images
· Sign up or log in to comment
Upvote
30
Get this paper in your agent:
hf papers read 2609.18011
Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash
Models citing this paper 0
No model linking this paper
Cite arxiv.org/abs/2609.18011 in a model README.md to link it from this page.
Datasets citing this paper 1
Spaces citing this paper 0
No Space linking this paper
Cite arxiv.org/abs/2609.18011 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.