Language models excel at following instructions but often struggle with the collaborative aspects of conversation that humans naturally employ. This limitation in grounding -- the process by which conversation participants establish mutual understanding -- can lead to outcomes ranging from frustrated users to serious consequences in high-stakes scenarios. To systematically study grounding challenges in human-LLM interactions, we analyze logs from three human-assistant datasets: WildChat, MultiWOZ, and Bing Chat. We develop a taxonomy of grounding acts and build models to annotate and forecast grounding behavior. Our findings reveal significant differences in human-human and human-LLM grounding: LLMs were three times less likely to initiate clarification and sixteen times less likely to provide follow-up requests than humans. Additionally, early grounding failures predicted later interaction breakdowns. Building on these insights, we introduce RIFTS: a benchmark derived from publicly available LLM interaction data containing situations where LLMs fail to initiate grounding. We note that current frontier models perform poorly on RIFTS, highlighting the need to reconsider how we train and prompt LLMs for human interaction. To this end, we develop a preliminary intervention that mitigates grounding failures.

Language models are aligned to emulate the collective voice of many, resulting in outputs that align with no one in particular. Steering LLMs away from generic output is possible through supervised finetuning or RLHF, but requires prohibitively large datasets for new ad-hoc tasks. We argue that it is instead possible to align an LLM to a specific setting by leveraging a very small number ($<10$) of demonstrations as feedback. Our method, Demonstration ITerated Task Optimization (DITTO), directly aligns language model outputs to a user's demonstrated behaviors. Derived using ideas from online imitation learning, DITTO cheaply generates online comparison data by treating users' demonstrations as preferred over output from the LLM and its intermediate checkpoints. We evaluate DITTO's ability to learn fine-grained style and task alignment across domains such as news articles, emails, and blog posts. Additionally, we conduct a user study soliciting a range of demonstrations from participants ($N=16$). Across our benchmarks and user study, we find that win-rates for DITTO outperform few-shot prompting, supervised fine-tuning, and other self-play methods by an average of 19% points. By using demonstrations as feedback directly, DITTO offers a novel method for effective customization of LLMs.

People rely on social skills like conflict resolution to communicate effectively and to thrive in both work and personal life. However, practice environments for social skills are typically out of reach for most people. How can we make social skill training more available, accessible, and inviting? Drawing upon interdisciplinary research from communication and psychology, this perspective paper identifies social skill barriers to enter specialized fields. Then we present a solution that leverages large language models for social skill training via a generic framework. Our AI Partner, AI Mentor framework merges experiential learning with realistic practice and tailored feedback. This work ultimately calls for cross-disciplinary innovation to address the broader implications for workforce development and social equality.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are capable of successfully performing many language processing tasks zero-shot (without training data). If zero-shot LLMs can also reliably classify and explain social phenomena like persuasiveness and political ideology, then LLMs could augment the Computational Social Science (CSS) pipeline in important ways. This work provides a road map for using LLMs as CSS tools. Towards this end, we contribute a set of prompting best practices and an extensive evaluation pipeline to measure the zero-shot performance of 13 language models on 25 representative English CSS benchmarks. On taxonomic labeling tasks (classification), LLMs fail to outperform the best fine-tuned models but still achieve fair levels of agreement with humans. On free-form coding tasks (generation), LLMs produce explanations that often exceed the quality of crowdworkers' gold references. We conclude that the performance of today's LLMs can augment the CSS research pipeline in two ways: (1) serving as zero-shot data annotators on human annotation teams, and (2) bootstrapping challenging creative generation tasks (e.g., explaining the underlying attributes of a text). In summary, LLMs are posed to meaningfully participate in} social science analysis in partnership with humans.

Effective conversation requires common ground: a shared understanding between the participants. Common ground, however, does not emerge spontaneously in conversation. Speakers and listeners work together to both identify and construct a shared basis while avoiding misunderstanding. To accomplish grounding, humans rely on a range of dialogue acts, like clarification (What do you mean?) and acknowledgment (I understand.). In domains like teaching and emotional support, carefully constructing grounding prevents misunderstanding. However, it is unclear whether large language models (LLMs) leverage these dialogue acts in constructing common ground. To this end, we curate a set of grounding acts and propose corresponding metrics that quantify attempted grounding. We study whether LLMs use these grounding acts, simulating them taking turns from several dialogue datasets, and comparing the results to humans. We find that current LLMs are presumptive grounders, biased towards assuming common ground without using grounding acts. To understand the roots of this behavior, we examine the role of instruction tuning and reinforcement learning with human feedback (RLHF), finding that RLHF leads to less grounding. Altogether, our work highlights the need for more research investigating grounding in human-AI interaction.

Interpersonal conflict is an uncomfortable but unavoidable fact of life. Navigating conflict successfully is a skill -- one that can be learned through deliberate practice -- but few have access to effective training or feedback. To expand this access, we introduce Rehearsal, a system that allows users to rehearse conflicts with a believable simulated interlocutor, explore counterfactual "what if?" scenarios to identify alternative conversational paths, and learn through feedback on how and when to apply specific conflict strategies. Users can utilize Rehearsal to practice handling a variety of predefined conflict scenarios, from office disputes to relationship issues, or they can choose to create their own. To enable Rehearsal, we develop IRP prompting, a method of conditioning output of a large language model on the influential Interest-Rights-Power (IRP) theory from conflict resolution. Rehearsal uses IRP to generate utterances grounded in conflict resolution theory, guiding users towards counterfactual conflict resolution strategies that help de-escalate difficult conversations. In a between-subjects evaluation, 40 participants engaged in an actual conflict with a confederate after training. Compared to a control group with lecture material covering the same IRP theory, participants with simulated training from Rehearsal significantly improved their performance in the unaided conflict: they reduced their use of escalating competitive strategies by an average of 67%, while doubling their use of cooperative strategies. Overall, Rehearsal highlights the potential effectiveness of language models as tools for learning and practicing interpersonal skills.

We present ConceptEvo, a unified interpretation framework for deep neural networks (DNNs) that reveals the inception and evolution of learned concepts during training. Our work addresses a critical gap in DNN interpretation research, as existing methods primarily focus on post-training interpretation. ConceptEvo introduces two novel technical contributions: (1) an algorithm that generates a unified semantic space, enabling side-by-side comparison of different models during training, and (2) an algorithm that discovers and quantifies important concept evolutions for class predictions. Through a large-scale human evaluation and quantitative experiments, we demonstrate that ConceptEvo successfully identifies concept evolutions across different models, which are not only comprehensible to humans but also crucial for class predictions. ConceptEvo is applicable to both modern DNN architectures, such as ConvNeXt, and classic DNNs, such as VGGs and InceptionV3.

Pragmatic reference enables efficient interpersonal communication. Prior work uses simple reference games to test models of pragmatic reasoning, often with unidentified speakers and listeners. In practice, however, speakers' sociocultural background shapes their pragmatic assumptions. For example, readers of this paper assume NLP refers to "Natural Language Processing," and not "Neuro-linguistic Programming." This work introduces the Cultural Codes dataset, which operationalizes sociocultural pragmatic inference in a simple word reference game. Cultural Codes is based on the multi-turn collaborative two-player game, Codenames Duet. Our dataset consists of 794 games with 7,703 turns, distributed across 153 unique players. Alongside gameplay, we collect information about players' personalities, values, and demographics. Utilizing theories of communication and pragmatics, we predict each player's actions via joint modeling of their sociocultural priors and the game context. Our experiments show that accounting for background characteristics significantly improves model performance for tasks related to both clue giving and guessing, indicating that sociocultural priors play a vital role in gameplay decisions.

Generating a Chain of Thought (CoT) has been shown to consistently improve large language model (LLM) performance on a wide range of NLP tasks. However, prior work has mainly focused on logical reasoning tasks (e.g. arithmetic, commonsense QA); it remains unclear whether improvements hold for more diverse types of reasoning, especially in socially situated contexts. Concretely, we perform a controlled evaluation of zero-shot CoT across two socially sensitive domains: harmful questions and stereotype benchmarks. We find that zero-shot CoT reasoning in sensitive domains significantly increases a model's likelihood to produce harmful or undesirable output, with trends holding across different prompt formats and model variants. Furthermore, we show that harmful CoTs increase with model size, but decrease with improved instruction following. Our work suggests that zero-shot CoT should be used with caution on socially important tasks, especially when marginalized groups or sensitive topics are involved.

The advent of larger machine learning (ML) models have improved state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance in various modeling tasks, ranging from computer vision to natural language. As ML models continue increasing in size, so does their respective energy consumption and computational requirements. However, the methods for tracking, reporting, and comparing energy consumption remain limited. We presentEnergyVis, an interactive energy consumption tracker for ML models. Consisting of multiple coordinated views, EnergyVis enables researchers to interactively track, visualize and compare model energy consumption across key energy consumption and carbon footprint metrics (kWh and CO2), helping users explore alternative deployment locations and hardware that may reduce carbon footprints. EnergyVis aims to raise awareness concerning computational sustainability by interactively highlighting excessive energy usage during model training; and by providing alternative training options to reduce energy usage.