Collaborative knowledge work is changing in ways that go beyond disclosure or transparency. LLM agents are now embedded in how teams research, design, write, and decide: mediating between members, synthesizing inputs, reformulating ideas, and drafting shared outputs. They do not only facilitate collaboration; they operate within the workflow at the moment contributions are being formed. In doing so, they risk undermining the social conditions under which contributions can be witnessed, attributed, and held accountable. This workshop brings together researchers and practitioners to confront what we call contribution dissolution: the blurring of attribution, originality, and accountability in agent-mediated collaborative work. We argue that this dissolution begins before collaboration itself, in the individual worker's own uncertainty about what is genuinely theirs, and propagates through collaborative relationships, collapsing the reliability that makes productive intellectual exchange possible. Through position statements, mapping exercises, and a hands-on activity, participants will surface how framing accountability as a documentation problem (e.g., AI use statements, watermarking, provenance logs) overlooks the conditions under which accountability is produced. Our goal is to produce a shared research agenda and the foundations of an infrastructural response to contribution dissolution in collaborative knowledge work.
Kashif Imteyaz, M. Rifat, Divya Ramesh et al.· 0 citations
Patients seeking medical information often ask questions that embed incorrect assumptions or misconceptions. In such cases, safe medical communication requires not only answering the question, but identifying and correcting the underlying false belief. These interactions naturally unfold over multiple turns, a pattern now mirrored in interactions with LLMs. Yet current evaluation frameworks do not capture model behavior in these settings, where misconceptions can emerge, persist, or evolve over the course of a conversation. Whether LLMs can reliably correct such misconceptions over time remains largely unexamined. To study this, we introduce ThReadMed-QA, a multi-turn medical dialogue dataset of 2,437 patient-physician conversation threads comprising 8,204 question-answer pairs, derived from real patient interactions on AskDocs. This dataset enables systematic evaluation of whether models can detect and correct misconceptions under a multi-turn context. We evaluate five LLMs using a rubric-based LLM-as-a-Judge framework that scores responses based on their ability to identify and correct misconceptions. Our experiments reveal a consistent pattern: even frontier models that can address misconceptions in a single interaction degrade substantially over subsequent turns. GPT-5 and Claude-Haiku correct these false presuppositions around 85% on initial questions but drop to roughly 50% within two follow-ups. An oracle analysis replacing prior model outputs with physician responses shows that much of the degradation is driven by error propagation, while performance remains imperfect even under correct context. Even when models tend to correct misconceptions initially, their performance degrades substantially over later turns, leading to inconsistent and potentially unsafe guidance in patient-facing settings and highlighting the need for evaluation frameworks that capture multi-turn behavior.
Monica Munnangi, Saiph Savage· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
