Recent advancements in NLP, largely driven by Large Language Models (LLMs), have significantly improved performance on an array of tasks. However, Dialogue Act (DA) classification remains challenging, particularly in the fine-grained 50-class, multiparty setting. This paper investigates the root causes of LLMs’ poor performance in DA classification through a linguistically motivated analysis. We identify three key pre-tasks essential for accurate DA prediction: Turn Management, Communicative Function Identification, and Dialogue Structure Prediction. Our experiments reveal that LLMs struggle with these fundamental tasks, often failing to outperform simple rule-based baselines. Additionally, we establish a strong empirical correlation between errors in these pre-tasks and DA classification failures. A human study further highlights the significant gap between LLM and human-level dialogue understanding. These findings indicate that LLMs’ shortcomings in dialogue comprehension hinder their ability to accurately predict DAs, highlighting the need for improved dialogue-aware training approaches.

Successful teamwork requires team members to understand each other and communicate effectively, managing multiple linguistic and paralinguistic tasks at once. Because of the potential for interrelatedness of these tasks, it is important to have the ability to make multiple types of predictions on the same dataset. Here, we introduce Multimodal Communication Annotations for Teams (MultiCAT), a speech- and text-based dataset consisting of audio recordings, automated and hand-corrected transcriptions. MultiCAT builds upon data from teams working collaboratively to save victims in a simulated search and rescue mission, and consists of annotations and benchmark results for the following tasks: (1) dialog act classification, (2) adjacency pair detection, (3) sentiment and emotion recognition, (4) closed-loop communication detection, and (5) vocal (phonetic) entrainment detection. We also present exploratory analyses on the relationship between our annotations and team outcomes. We posit that additional work on these tasks and their intersection will further improve understanding of team communication and its relation to team performance. Code & data: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14834835

Recognizing events and their coreferential mentions in a document is essential for understanding semantic meanings of text. The existing research on event coreference resolution is mostly limited to news articles. In this paper, we present the first dataset for the legal domain, LegalCore, which has been annotated with comprehensive event and event coreference information. The legal contract documents we annotated in this dataset are several times longer than news articles, with an average length of around 25k tokens per document. The annotations show that legal documents have dense event mentions and feature both short-distance and super long-distance coreference links between event mentions. We further benchmark mainstream Large Language Models (LLMs) on this dataset for both event detection and event coreference resolution tasks, and find that this dataset poses significant challenges for state-of-the-art open-source and proprietary LLMs, which perform significantly worse than a supervised baseline. We will publish the dataset as well as the code.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities in a multitude of Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks. However, these models are still not immune to limitations such as social biases, especially gender bias. This work investigates whether current closed and open-source LLMs possess gender bias, especially when asked to give moral opinions. To evaluate these models, we curate and introduce a new dataset GenMO (Gender-bias in Morality Opinions) comprising parallel short stories featuring male and female characters respectively. Specifically, we test models from the GPT family (GPT-3.5-turbo, GPT-3.5-turbo-instruct, GPT-4-turbo), Llama 3 and 3.1 families (8B/70B), Mistral-7B and Claude 3 families (Sonnet and Opus). Surprisingly, despite employing safety checks, all production-standard models we tested display significant gender bias with GPT-3.5-turbo giving biased opinions in 24% of the samples. Additionally, all models consistently favour female characters, with GPT showing bias in 68-85% of cases and Llama 3 in around 81-85% instances. Additionally, our study investigates the impact of model parameters on gender bias and explores real-world situations where LLMs reveal biases in moral decision-making.

Most previous research on moral frames has focused on social media short texts, little work has explored moral sentiment within news articles. In news articles, authors often express their opinions or political stance through moral judgment towards events, specifically whether the event is right or wrong according to social moral rules. This paper initiates a new task to understand moral opinions towards events in news articles. We have created a new dataset, EMONA, and annotated event-level moral opinions in news articles. This dataset consists of 400 news articles containing over 10k sentences and 45k events, among which 9,613 events received moral foundation labels. Extracting event morality is a challenging task, as moral judgment towards events can be very implicit. Baseline models were built for event moral identification and classification. In addition, we also conduct extrinsic evaluations to integrate event-level moral opinions into three downstream tasks. The statistical analysis and experiments show that moral opinions of events can serve as informative features for identifying ideological bias or subjective events.