The importance of benchmarks for assessing the values of language models has been pronounced due to the growing need of more authentic, human-aligned responses. However, existing benchmarks rely on human or machine annotations that are vulnerable to value-related biases. Furthermore, the tested scenarios often diverge from real-world contexts in which models are commonly used to generate text and express values. To address these issues, we propose the Value Portrait benchmark, a reliable framework for evaluating LLMs’ value orientations with two key characteristics. First, the benchmark consists of items that capture real-life user-LLM interactions, enhancing the relevance of assessment results to real-world LLM usage. Second, each item is rated by human subjects based on its similarity to their own thoughts, and correlations between these ratings and the subjects’ actual value scores are derived. This psychometrically validated approach ensures that items strongly correlated with specific values serve as reliable items for assessing those values. Through evaluating 44 LLMs with our benchmark, we find that these models prioritize Benevolence, Security, and Self-Direction values while placing less emphasis on Tradition, Power, and Achievement values. Also, our analysis reveals biases in how LLMs perceive various demographic groups, deviating from real human data.

Visual persuasion, which uses visual elements to influence cognition and behaviors, is crucial in fields such as advertising and politicalcommunication. With recent advancements in artificial intelligence, there is growing potential to develop persuasive systems that automatically generate persuasive images tailored to individuals. However, a significant bottleneck in this area is the lack of comprehensivedatasets that connect the persuasiveness of images with the personal information about those who evaluated the images. To address this gap and facilitate technological advancements in personalized visual persuasion, we release the Personalized Visual Persuasion (PVP) dataset, comprising 28,454 persuasive images across 596 messages and 9 persuasion strategies. Importantly, the PVP dataset provides persuasiveness scores of images evaluated by 2,521 human annotators, along with their demographic and psychological characteristics (personality traits and values). We demonstrate the utility of our dataset by developing a persuasive image generator and an automated evaluator, and establish benchmark baselines. Our experiments reveal that incorporating psychological characteristics enhances the generation and evaluation of persuasive images, providing valuable insights for personalized visual persuasion.

In designing multiple-choice questions (MCQs) in education, creating plausible distractors is crucial for identifying students’ misconceptions and gaps in knowledge and accurately assessing their understanding. However, prior studies on distractor generation have not paid sufficient attention to enhancing the difficulty of distractors, resulting in reduced effectiveness of MCQs. This study presents a pipeline for training a model to generate distractors that are more likely to be selected by students. First, we train a pairwise ranker to reason about students’ misconceptions and assess the relative plausibility of two distractors. Using this model, we create a dataset of pairwise distractor ranks and then train a distractor generator via Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) to generate more plausible distractors. Experiments on computer science subjects (Python, DB, MLDL) demonstrate that our pairwise ranker effectively identifies students’ potential misunderstandings and achieves ranking accuracy comparable to human experts. Furthermore, our distractor generator outperforms several baselines in generating plausible distractors and produces questions with a higher item discrimination index (DI).

Knowledge tracing (KT) in programming education presents unique challenges due to the complexity of coding tasks and the diverse methods students use to solve problems. Although students’ questions often contain valuable signals about their understanding and misconceptions, traditional KT models often neglect to incorporate these questions as inputs to address these challenges. This paper introduces SQKT (Students’ Question-based Knowledge Tracing), a knowledge tracing model that leverages students’ questions and automatically extracted skill information to enhance the accuracy of predicting students’ performance on subsequent problems in programming education. Our method creates semantically rich embeddings that capture not only the surface-level content of the questions but also the student’s mastery level and conceptual understanding. Experimental results demonstrate SQKT’s superior performance in predicting student completion across various Python programming courses of differing difficulty levels. In in-domain experiments, SQKT achieved a 33.1% absolute improvement in AUC compared to baseline models. The model also exhibited robust generalization capabilities in cross-domain settings, effectively addressing data scarcity issues in advanced programming courses. SQKT can be used to tailor educational content to individual learning needs and design adaptive learning systems in computer science education.

In dialogue state tracking (DST), in-context learning comprises a retriever that selects labeled dialogues as in-context examples and a DST model that uses these examples to infer the dialogue state of the query dialogue. Existing methods for constructing training data for retrievers suffer from three key limitations: (1) the synergistic effect of examples is not considered, (2) the linguistic characteristics of the query are not sufficiently factored in, and (3) scoring is not directly optimized for DST performance. Consequently, the retriever can fail to retrieve examples that would substantially improve DST performance. To address these issues, we present CombiSearch—a method that scores effective in-context examples based on their combinatorial impact on DST performance. Our evaluation on MultiWOZ shows that retrievers trained with CombiSearch surpass state-of-the-art models, achieving a 20× gain in data efficiency and generalizing well to the SGD dataset. Moreover, CombiSearch attains a 12% absolute improvement in the upper bound DST performance over traditional approaches when no retrieval errors are assumed. This significantly increases the headroom for practical DST performance while demonstrating that existing methods rely on suboptimal data for retriever training.

Emotional support dialogue systems aim to reduce help-seekers’ distress and help them overcome challenges. While human values—core beliefs that shape an individual’s priorities—are increasingly emphasized in contemporary psychological therapy for their role in fostering internal transformation and long-term emotional well-being, their integration into emotional support systems remains underexplored. To bridge this gap, we present a value-driven method for training emotional support dialogue systems designed to reinforce positive values in seekers. Notably, our model identifies which values to reinforce at each turn and how to do so, by leveraging online support conversations from Reddit. We evaluate the method across support skills, seekers’ emotional intensity, and value reinforcement. Our method consistently outperforms various baselines, effectively exploring and eliciting values from seekers. Additionally, leveraging crowd knowledge from Reddit significantly enhances its effectiveness. Therapists highlighted its ability to validate seekers’ challenges and emphasize positive aspects of their situations—both crucial elements of value reinforcement. Our work, being the first to integrate value reinforcement into emotional support systems, demonstrates its promise and establishes a foundation for future research.

Despite extensive research in Argument Mining (AM), the field faces significant challenges in limited reproducibility, difficulty in comparing systems due to varying task combinations, and a lack of interoperability caused by the heterogeneous nature of argumentation theory. These challenges are further exacerbated by the absence of dedicated tools, with most advancements remaining isolated research outputs rather than reusable systems. The oAMF (Open Argument Mining Framework) addresses these issues by providing an open-source, modular, and scalable platform that unifies diverse AM methods. Initially released with seventeen integrated modules, the oAMF serves as a starting point for researchers and developers to build, experiment with, and deploy AM pipelines while ensuring interoperability and allowing multiple theories of argumentation to co-exist within the same framework. Its flexible design supports integration via Python APIs, drag-and-drop tools, and web interfaces, streamlining AM development for research and industry setup, facilitating method comparison, and reproducibility.

Conversational search, unlike single-turn retrieval tasks, requires understanding the current question within a dialogue context. The common approach of rewrite-then-retrieve aims to decontextualize questions to be self-sufficient for off-the-shelf retrievers, but most existing methods produce sub-optimal query rewrites due to the limited ability to incorporate signals from the retrieval results. To overcome this limitation, we present a novel framework RetPO (Retriever’s Preference Optimization), which is designed to optimize a language model (LM) for reformulating search queries in line with the preferences of the target retrieval systems. The process begins by prompting a large LM to produce various potential rewrites and then collects retrieval performance for these rewrites as the retrievers’ preferences. Through the process, we construct a large-scale dataset called RF collection, containing Retrievers’ Feedback on over 410K query rewrites across 12K conversations. Furthermore, we fine-tune a smaller LM using this dataset to align it with the retrievers’ preferences as feedback. The resulting model demonstrates superiority on two benchmarks, surpassing the previous state-of-the-art performance of rewrite-then-retrieve approaches, including GPT-3.5.

Knowledge editing (KE) methods offer an efficient way to modify knowledge in large language models. Current KE evaluations typically assess editing success by considering only the edited knowledge without any preceding contexts. In real-world applications, however, preceding contexts often trigger the retrieval of the original knowledge and undermine the intended edit. To address this issue, we have developed CHED—a benchmark designed to evaluate the context robustness of KE methods. Evaluations on CHED show that they often fail when preceding contexts are present. To mitigate this shortcoming, we introduce CoRE, a KE method designed to strengthen context robustness by minimizing context-sensitive variance in hidden states of the model for edited knowledge. This method not only improves the editing success rate in situations where a preceding context is present but also preserves the overall capabilities of the model. We also provide an in-depth analysis of the differing impacts of preceding contexts when introduced as user utterances versus assistant responses, and we dissect attention-score patterns to assess how specific tokens influence editing success. We release our dataset and code at [https://github.com/holi-lab/CoRE](https://github.com/holi-lab/CoRE).

To achieve lifelong human-agent interaction, dialogue agents need to constantly memorize perceived information and properly retrieve it for response generation (RG). While prior studies focus on getting rid of outdated memories to improve retrieval quality, we argue that such memories provide rich, important contextual cues for RG (e.g., changes in user behaviors) in long-term conversations. We present THEANINE, a framework for LLM-based lifelong dialogue agents. THEANINE discards memory removal and manages large-scale memories by linking them based on their temporal and cause-effect relation. Enabled by this linking structure, THEANINE augments RG with memory timelines - series of memories representing the evolution or causality of relevant past events. Along with THEANINE, we introduce TeaFarm, a counterfactual-driven evaluation scheme, addressing the limitation of G-Eval and human efforts when assessing agent performance in integrating past memories into RG. A supplementary video for THEANINE and data for TeaFarm are at https://huggingface.co/spaces/ResearcherScholar/Theanine.

The increasing demand for mental health services has led to the rise of AI-driven mental health chatbots, though challenges related to privacy, data collection, and expertise persist. Motivational Interviewing (MI) is gaining attention as a theoretical basis for boosting expertise in the development of these chatbots. However, existing datasets are showing limitations for training chatbots, leading to a substantial demand for publicly available resources in the field of MI and psychotherapy. These challenges are even more pronounced in non-English languages, where they receive less attention. In this paper, we propose a novel framework that simulates MI sessions enriched with the expertise of professional therapists. We train an MI forecaster model that mimics the behavioral choices of professional therapists and employ Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate utterances through prompt engineering. Then, we present KMI, the first synthetic dataset theoretically grounded in MI, containing 1,000 high-quality Korean Motivational Interviewing dialogues. Through an extensive expert evaluation of the generated dataset and the dialogue model trained on it, we demonstrate the quality, expertise, and practicality of KMI. We also introduce novel metrics derived from MI theory in order to evaluate dialogues from the perspective of MI.

In abstractive summarization, the challenge of producing concise and accurate summaries arises from the vast amount of information contained in the source document. Consequently, although Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate fluent text, they often introduce inaccuracies by hallucinating content not found in the original source. While supervised fine-tuning methods that maximize likelihood contribute to this issue, they do not consistently enhance the faithfulness of the summaries. Preference-based optimization methods, such as Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), can further refine the model to align with human preferences. However, these methods still heavily depend on costly human feedback. In this work, we introduce a novel and straightforward approach called Model-based Preference Optimization (MPO) to fine-tune LLMs for improved summarization abilities without any human feedback. By leveraging the model’s inherent summarization capabilities, we create a preference dataset that is fully generated by the model using different decoding strategies. Our experiments on standard summarization datasets and various metrics demonstrate that our proposed MPO significantly enhances the quality of generated summaries without relying on human feedback. The code is publicly available at https://github.com/cjaep/MPO.

A primary challenge in abstractive summarization is hallucination—the phenomenon where a model generates plausible text that is absent in the source text. We hypothesize that the domain (or topic) of the source text triggers the model to generate text that is highly probable in the domain, neglecting the details of the source text. To alleviate this model bias, we introduce a decoding strategy based on domain-conditional pointwise mutual information. This strategy adjusts the generation probability of each token by comparing it with the token’s marginal probability within the domain of the source text. According to evaluation on the XSUM dataset, our method demonstrates improvement in terms of faithfulness and source relevance.

The development of large language models tailored for handling patients’ clinical notes is often hindered by the limited accessibility and usability of these notes due to strict privacy regulations.To address these challenges, we first create synthetic large-scale clinical notes using publicly available case reports extracted from biomedical literature.We then use these synthetic notes to train our specialized clinical large language model, Asclepius.While Asclepius is trained on synthetic data, we assess its potential performance in real-world applications by evaluating it using real clinical notes.We benchmark Asclepius against several other large language models, including GPT-3.5-turbo and other open-source alternatives. To further validate our approach using synthetic notes, we also compare Asclepius with its variants trained on real clinical notes. Our findings convincingly demonstrate that synthetic clinical notes can serve as viable substitutes for real ones when constructing high-performing clinical language models. This conclusion is supported by detailed evaluations conducted by both GPT-4 and medical professionals. All resources—including weights, codes, and data—used in the development of Asclepius will be made publicly accessible for future research.

In real world applications, knowledge graphs (KG) are widely used in various domains (e.g. medical applications and dialogue agents). However, for fact verification, KGs have not been adequately utilized as a knowledge source. KGs can be a valuable knowledge source in fact verification due to their reliability and broad applicability. A KG consists of nodes and edges which makes it clear how concepts are linked together, allowing machines to reason over chains of topics. However, there are many challenges in understanding how these machine-readable concepts map to information in text. To enable the community to better use KGs, we introduce a new dataset, FactKG: Fact Verificationvia Reasoning on Knowledge Graphs. It consists of 108k natural language claims with five types of reasoning: One-hop, Conjunction, Existence, Multi-hop, and Negation. Furthermore, FactKG contains various linguistic patterns, including colloquial style claims as well as written style claims to increase practicality. Lastly, we develop a baseline approach and analyze FactKG over these reasoning types. We believe FactKG can advance both reliability and practicality in KG-based fact verification.

Being able to predict people’s opinions on issues and behaviors in realistic scenarios can be helpful in various domains, such as politics and marketing. However, conducting large-scale surveys like the European Social Survey to solicit people’s opinions on individual issues can incur prohibitive costs. Leveraging prior research showing influence of core human values on individual decisions and actions, we propose to use value-injected large language models (LLM) to predict opinions and behaviors. To this end, we present Value Injection Method (VIM), a collection of two methods—argument generation and question answering—designed to inject targeted value distributions into LLMs via fine-tuning. We then conduct a series of experiments on four tasks to test the effectiveness of VIM and the possibility of using value-injected LLMs to predict opinions and behaviors of people. We find that LLMs value-injected with variations of VIM substantially outperform the baselines. Also, the results suggest that opinions and behaviors can be better predicted using value-injected LLMs than the baseline approaches.

Despite recent interest in open domain question answering (ODQA) over tables, many studies still rely on datasets that are not truly optimal for the task with respect to utilizing structural nature of table. These datasets assume answers reside as a single cell value and do not necessitate exploring over multiple cells such as aggregation, comparison, and sorting. Thus, we release Open-WikiTable, the first ODQA dataset that requires complex reasoning over tables. Open-WikiTable is built upon WikiSQL and WikiTableQuestions to be applicable in the open-domain setting. As each question is coupled with both textual answers and SQL queries, Open-WikiTable opens up a wide range of possibilities for future research, as both reader and parser methods can be applied. The dataset is publicly available.

While most task-oriented dialogues assume conversations between the agent and one user at a time, dialogue systems are increasingly expected to communicate with multiple users simultaneously who make decisions collaboratively. To facilitate development of such systems, we release the Multi-User MultiWOZ dataset: task-oriented dialogues among two users and one agent. To collect this dataset, each user utterance from MultiWOZ 2.2 was replaced with a small chat between two users that is semantically and pragmatically consistent with the original user utterance, thus resulting in the same dialogue state and system response. These dialogues reflect interesting dynamics of collaborative decision-making in task-oriented scenarios, e.g., social chatter and deliberation. Supported by this data, we propose the novel task of multi-user contextual query rewriting: to rewrite a task-oriented chat between two users as a concise task-oriented query that retains only task-relevant information and that is directly consumable by the dialogue system. We demonstrate that in multi-user dialogues, using predicted rewrites substantially improves dialogue state tracking without modifying existing dialogue systems that are trained for single-user dialogues. Further, this method surpasses training a medium-sized model directly on multi-user dialogues and generalizes to unseen domains.

While large language models (LLMs) have made considerable advancements in understanding and generating unstructured text, their application in structured data remains underexplored. Particularly, using LLMs for complex reasoning tasks on knowledge graphs (KGs) remains largely untouched. To address this, we propose KG-GPT, a multi-purpose framework leveraging LLMs for tasks employing KGs. KG-GPT comprises three steps: Sentence Segmentation, Graph Retrieval, and Inference, each aimed at partitioning sentences, retrieving relevant graph components, and deriving logical conclusions, respectively. We evaluate KG-GPT using KG-based fact verification and KGQA benchmarks, with the model showing competitive and robust performance, even outperforming several fully-supervised models. Our work, therefore, marks a significant step in unifying structured and unstructured data processing within the realm of LLMs.

Prior art investigating task-oriented dialog and automatic generation of such dialogs have focused on single-user dialogs between a single user and an agent. However, there is limited study on adapting such AI agents to multi-user conversations (involving multiple users and an agent). Multi-user conversations are richer than single-user conversations containing social banter and collaborative decision making. The most significant challenge impeding such studies is the lack of suitable multi-user task-oriented dialogs with annotations of user belief states and system actions. One potential solution is multi-user dialog generation from single-user data. Many single-user dialogs datasets already contain dialog state information (intents, slots), thus making them suitable candidates. In this work, we propose a novel approach for expanding single-user task-oriented dialogs (e.g. MultiWOZ) to multi-user dialogs in a zero-shot setting.

The importance of reliably determining the helpfulness of product reviews is rising as both helpful and unhelpful reviews continue to accumulate on e-commerce websites. And argumentational features—such as the structure of arguments and the types of underlying elementary units—have shown to be promising indicators of product review helpfulness. However, their adoption has been limited due to the lack of sufficient resources and large-scale experiments investigating their utility. To this end, we present the AMazon Argument Mining (AM²) corpus—a corpus of 878 Amazon reviews on headphones annotated according to a theoretical argumentation model designed to evaluate argument quality.Experiments show that employing argumentational features leads to statistically significant improvements over the state-of-the-art review helpfulness predictors under both text-only and text-and-image settings.

Status is widely used to incentivize user engagement online. However, visible status indicators could inadvertently bias online deliberation to favor high-status users. In this work, we design and deploy a randomized experiment on the ChangeMyView platform to quantify status biases in deliberation online. We find strong evidence of status bias: hiding status on ChangeMyView increases the persuasion rate of moderate-status users by 84% and decreases the persuasion rate of high-status users by 41% relative to the control group. We also find that the persuasive power of status is moderated by verbosity, suggesting that status is used as an information-processing heuristic under cognitive load. Finally, we find that a user’s status influences the argumentation behavior of other users they interact with in a manner that disadvantages low and moderate-status users.

Finding counterevidence to statements is key to many tasks, including counterargument generation. We build a system that, given a statement, retrieves counterevidence from diverse sources on the Web. At the core of this system is a natural language inference (NLI) model that determines whether a candidate sentence is valid counterevidence or not. Most NLI models to date, however, lack proper reasoning abilities necessary to find counterevidence that involves complex inference. Thus, we present a knowledge-enhanced NLI model that aims to handle causality- and example-based inference by incorporating knowledge graphs. Our NLI model outperforms baselines for NLI tasks, especially for instances that require the targeted inference. In addition, this NLI model further improves the counterevidence retrieval system, notably finding complex counterevidence better.

While argument mining has achieved significant success in classifying argumentative relations between statements (support, attack, and neutral), we have a limited computational understanding of logical mechanisms that constitute those relations. Most recent studies rely on black-box models, which are not as linguistically insightful as desired. On the other hand, earlier studies use rather simple lexical features, missing logical relations between statements. To overcome these limitations, our work classifies argumentative relations based on four logical and theory-informed mechanisms between two statements, namely, (i) factual consistency, (ii) sentiment coherence, (iii) causal relation, and (iv) normative relation. We demonstrate that our operationalization of these logical mechanisms classifies argumentative relations without directly training on data labeled with the relations, significantly better than several unsupervised baselines. We further demonstrate that these mechanisms also improve supervised classifiers through representation learning.

Finding attackable sentences in an argument is the first step toward successful refutation in argumentation. We present a first large-scale analysis of sentence attackability in online arguments. We analyze driving reasons for attacks in argumentation and identify relevant characteristics of sentences. We demonstrate that a sentence’s attackability is associated with many of these characteristics regarding the sentence’s content, proposition types, and tone, and that an external knowledge source can provide useful information about attackability. Building on these findings, we demonstrate that machine learning models can automatically detect attackable sentences in arguments, significantly better than several baselines and comparably well to laypeople.

Argumentation accommodates various rhetorical devices, such as questions, reported speech, and imperatives. These rhetorical tools usually assert argumentatively relevant propositions rather implicitly, so understanding their true meaning is key to understanding certain arguments properly. However, most argument mining systems and computational linguistics research have paid little attention to implicitly asserted propositions in argumentation. In this paper, we examine a wide range of computational methods for extracting propositions that are implicitly asserted in questions, reported speech, and imperatives in argumentation. By evaluating the models on a corpus of 2016 U.S. presidential debates and online commentary, we demonstrate the effectiveness and limitations of the computational models. Our study may inform future research on argument mining and the semantics of these rhetorical devices in argumentation.

We introduce a corpus of the 2016 U.S. presidential debates and commentary, containing 4,648 argumentative propositions annotated with fine-grained proposition types. Modern machine learning pipelines for analyzing argument have difficulty distinguishing between types of propositions based on their factuality, rhetorical positioning, and speaker commitment. Inability to properly account for these facets leaves such systems inaccurate in understanding of fine-grained proposition types. In this paper, we demonstrate an approach to annotating for four complex proposition types, namely normative claims, desires, future possibility, and reported speech. We develop a hybrid machine learning and human workflow for annotation that allows for efficient and reliable annotation of complex linguistic phenomena, and demonstrate with preliminary analysis of rhetorical strategies and structure in presidential debates. This new dataset and method can support technical researchers seeking more nuanced representations of argument, as well as argumentation theorists developing new quantitative analyses.

We propose a novel take on understanding narratives in social media, focusing on learning ”functional story schemas”, which consist of sets of stereotypical functional structures. We develop an unsupervised pipeline to extract schemas and apply our method to Reddit posts to detect schematic structures that are characteristic of different subreddits. We validate our schemas through human interpretation and evaluate their utility via a text classification task. Our experiments show that extracted schemas capture distinctive structural patterns in different subreddits, improving classification performance of several models by 2.4% on average. We also observe that these schemas serve as lenses that reveal community norms.

We present a model to tackle a fundamental but understudied problem in computational argumentation: proposition extraction. Propositions are the basic units of an argument and the primary building blocks of most argument mining systems. However, they are usually substituted by argumentative discourse units obtained via surface-level text segmentation, which may yield text segments that lack semantic information necessary for subsequent argument mining processes. In contrast, our cascade model aims to extract complete propositions by handling anaphora resolution, text segmentation, reported speech, questions, imperatives, missing subjects, and revision. We formulate each task as a computational problem and test various models using a corpus of the 2016 U.S. presidential debates. We show promising performance for some tasks and discuss main challenges in proposition extraction.

We present a neural architecture for modeling argumentative dialogue that explicitly models the interplay between an Opinion Holder’s (OH’s) reasoning and a challenger’s argument, with the goal of predicting if the argument successfully changes the OH’s view. The model has two components: (1) vulnerable region detection, an attention model that identifies parts of the OH’s reasoning that are amenable to change, and (2) interaction encoding, which identifies the relationship between the content of the OH’s reasoning and that of the challenger’s argument. Based on evaluation on discussions from the Change My View forum on Reddit, the two components work together to predict an OH’s change in view, outperforming several baselines. A posthoc analysis suggests that sentences picked out by the attention model are addressed more frequently by successful arguments than by unsuccessful ones.

We present an unsupervised model of dialogue act sequences in conversation. By modeling topical themes as transitioning more slowly than dialogue acts in conversation, our model de-emphasizes content-related words in order to focus on conversational function words that signal dialogue acts. We also incorporate speaker tendencies to use some acts more than others as an additional predictor of dialogue act prevalence beyond temporal dependencies. According to the evaluation presented on two dissimilar corpora, the CNET forum and NPS Chat corpus, the effectiveness of each modeling assumption is found to vary depending on characteristics of the data. De-emphasizing content-related words yields improvement on the CNET corpus, while utilizing speaker tendencies is advantageous on the NPS corpus. The components of our model complement one another to achieve robust performance on both corpora and outperform state-of-the-art baseline models.

In this work we investigate how role-based behavior profiles of a Wikipedia editor, considered against the backdrop of roles taken up by other editors in discussions, predict the success of the editor at achieving an impact on the associated article. We first contribute a new public dataset including a task predicting the success of Wikipedia editors involved in discussion, measured by an operationalization of the lasting impact of their edits in the article. We then propose a probabilistic graphical model that advances earlier work inducing latent discussion roles using the light supervision of success in the negotiation task. We evaluate the performance of the model and interpret findings of roles and group configurations that lead to certain outcomes on Wikipedia.