Conversational grounding, vital for building dependable dialog systems, involves ensuring a mutual understanding of shared information. Despite its importance, there has been limited research on this aspect of conversation in recent years, especially after the advent of Large Language Models (LLMs). Previous studies have highlighted the shortcomings of pre-trained language models in conversational grounding. However, most testing for conversational grounding capabilities involves human evaluations that are costly and time-consuming. This has led to a lack of testing across multiple models of varying sizes, a critical need given the rapid rate of new model releases. This gap in research becomes more significant considering recent advances in language models, which have led to new emergent capabilities. In this paper, we aim to evaluate the performance of LLMs in various aspects of conversational grounding and analyze why some models perform better than others. We demonstrate a direct correlation between the size of the pre-training data and conversational grounding abilities, meaning that they have independently acquired a specific form of pragmatic capabilities from larger pre-training datasets. Finally, we propose ways to enhance the capabilities of the models that lag in this aspect.

Successful conversations often rest on common understanding, where all parties are on the same page about the information being shared. This process, known as conversational grounding, is crucial for building trustworthy dialog systems that can accurately keep track of and recall the shared information. The proficiencies of an agent in grounding the conveyed information significantly contribute to building a reliable dialog system. Despite recent advancements in dialog systems, there exists a noticeable deficit in their grounding capabilities. Traum (Traum, 1995) provided a framework for conversational grounding introducing Grounding Acts and Grounding Units, but substantial progress, especially in the realm of Large Language Models, remains lacking. To bridge this gap, we present the annotation of two dialog corpora employing Grounding Acts, Grounding Units, and a measure of their degree of grounding. We discuss our key findings during the annotation and also provide a baseline model to test the performance of current Language Models in categorizing the grounding acts of the dialogs. Our work aims to provide a useful resource for further research in making conversations with machines better understood and more reliable in natural day-to-day collaborative dialogs.

Hedging is a strategy for softening the impact of a statement in conversation. In reducing the strength of an expression, it may help to avoid embarrassment (more technically, “face threat”) to one’s listener. For this reason, it is often found in contexts of instruction, such as tutoring. In this work, we develop a model of hedge generation based on i) fine-tuning state-of-the-art language models trained on human-human tutoring data, followed by ii) reranking to select the candidate that best matches the expected hedging strategy within a candidate pool using a hedge classifier. We apply this method to a natural peer-tutoring corpus containing a significant number of disfluencies, repetitions, and repairs. The results show that generation in this noisy environment is feasible with reranking. By conducting an error analysis for both approaches, we reveal the challenges faced by systems attempting to accomplish both social and task-oriented goals in conversation.

This paper explores the application of machine learning techniques to predict where hedging occurs in peer-tutoring interactions. The study uses a naturalistic face-to-face dataset annotated for natural language turns, conversational strategies, tutoring strategies, and nonverbal behaviors. These elements are processed into a vector representation of the previous turns, which serves as input to several machine learning models, including MLP and LSTM. The results show that embedding layers, capturing the semantic information of the previous turns, significantly improves the model’s performance. Additionally, the study provides insights into the importance of various features, such as interpersonal rapport and nonverbal behaviors, in predicting hedges by using Shapley values for feature explanation. We discover that the eye gaze of both the tutor and the tutee has a significant impact on hedge prediction. We further validate this observation through a follow-up ablation study.

Hedges have an important role in the management of rapport. In peer-tutoring, they are notably used by tutors in dyads experiencing low rapport to tone down the impact of instructions and negative feedback. Pursuing the objective of building a tutoring agent that manages rapport with teenagers in order to improve learning, we used a multimodal peer-tutoring dataset to construct a computational framework for identifying hedges. We compared approaches relying on pre-trained resources with others that integrate insights from the social science literature. Our best performance involved a hybrid approach that outperforms the existing baseline while being easier to interpret. We employ a model explainability tool to explore the features that characterize hedges in peer-tutoring conversations, and we identify some novel features, and the benefits of a such a hybrid model approach.