Katharine Kowalyshyn

Kaveh Eskandari Miandoab, Katharine Kowalyshyn, Kabir Pamnani et al.

We present IntelliProof, an interactive system for analyzing argumentative essays through LLMs. IntelliProof structures an essay as an argumentation graph, where claims are represented as nodes, supporting evidence is attached as node properties, and edges encode supporting or attacking relations. Unlike existing automated essay scoring systems, IntelliProof emphasizes the user experience: each relation is initially classified and scored by an LLM, then visualized for enhanced understanding. The system provides justifications for classifications and produces quantitative measures for essay coherence. It enables rapid exploration of argumentative quality while retaining human oversight. In addition, IntelliProof provides a set of tools for a better understanding of an argumentative essay and its corresponding graph in natural language, bridging the gap between the structural semantics of argumentative essays and the user's understanding of a given text.

Katharine Kowalyshyn, Timothy Duggan, Daniel Little et al.

How do LLMs learn in-context? Is it by pattern-matching recent tokens, or by inferring latent structure? We probe this question using a toy graph random-walk across two competing graph structures. This task's answer is, in principle, decidable: either the model tracks global topology, or it copies local transitions. We present two lines of evidence that neither account alone is sufficient. First, reconstructing the internal representation structure via PCA reveals that at intermediate mixture ratios, both graph topologies are encoded in orthogonal principal subspaces simultaneously. This pattern is difficult to reconcile with purely local transition copying. Second, residual-stream activation patching and graph-difference steering causally intervene on this graph-family signal: late-layer patching almost fully transfers the clean graph preference, while linear steering moves predictions in the intended direction and fails under norm-matched and label-shuffled controls. Taken together, our findings are most consistent with a dual-mechanism account in which genuine structure inference and induction circuits operate in parallel.

Katharine Kowalyshyn, Matthias Scheutz

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

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.