Question-asking in collaborative dialogue has long been established as key to knowledge construction, both in internal and collaborative problem solving. In this work, we examine probing questions in collaborative dialogues: questions that explicitly elicit responses from the speaker’s interlocutors. Specifically, we focus on modeling the causal relations that lead directly from utterances earlier in the dialogue to the emergence of the probing question. We model these relations using a novel graph-based framework of *deliberation chains*, and realize the problem of constructing such chains as a coreference-style clustering problem. Our framework jointly models probing and causal utterances and the links between them, and we evaluate on two challenging collaborative task datasets: the Weights Task and DeliData. Our results demonstrate the effectiveness of our theoretically-grounded approach compared to both baselines and stronger coreference approaches, and establish a standard of performance in this novel task.

Within Dialogue Modeling research in AI and NLP, considerable attention has been spent on “dialogue state tracking” (DST), which is the ability to update the representations of the speaker’s needs at each turn in the dialogue by taking into account the past dialogue moves and history. Less studied but just as important to dialogue modeling, however, is “common ground tracking” (CGT), which identifies the shared belief space held by all of the participants in a task-oriented dialogue: the task-relevant propositions all participants accept as true. In this paper we present a method for automatically identifying the current set of shared beliefs and ”questions under discussion” (QUDs) of a group with a shared goal. We annotate a dataset of multimodal interactions in a shared physical space with speech transcriptions, prosodic features, gestures, actions, and facets of collaboration, and operationalize these features for use in a deep neural model to predict moves toward construction of common ground. Model outputs cascade into a set of formal closure rules derived from situated evidence and belief axioms and update operations. We empirically assess the contribution of each feature type toward successful construction of common ground relative to ground truth, establishing a benchmark in this novel, challenging task.

In this work, we assess the quality of different utterance segmentation techniques as an aid in annotating collaborative problem solving in teams and the creation of shared meaning between participants in a situated, collaborative task. We manually transcribe utterances in a dataset of triads collaboratively solving a problem involving dialogue and physical object manipulation, annotate collaborative moves according to these gold-standard transcripts, and then apply these annotations to utterances that have been automatically segmented using toolkits from Google and Open-AI’s Whisper. We show that the oracle utterances have minimal correspondence to automatically segmented speech, and that automatically segmented speech using different segmentation methods is also inconsistent. We also show that annotating automatically segmented speech has distinct implications compared with annotating oracle utterances — since most annotation schemes are designed for oracle cases, when annotating automatically-segmented utterances, annotators must make arbitrary judgements which other annotators may not replicate. We conclude with a discussion of how future annotation specs can account for these needs.