Conversational grounding is the collaborative process through which speakers establish and maintain mutual understanding. It is essential for the success of a dialogue. While it is inherent in human conversations, it remains a challenge for instruction-following Large Language Models (LLM). This paper surveys how conversational grounding is evaluated in task-oriented dialogue in the current era of LLMs. First, we focus on how conversational grounding is modelled explicitly — using dialogue acts and by modelling the participant mental state. Then, we review collaborative tasks that enable the evaluation of conversational grounding implicitly at the global level based on outcomes. Finally, we highlight the limitations of evaluation, notably the current methodology and metrics used, and outline research directions in conversational grounding and its evaluation.

Large language models (LLMs) gained immense popularity due to their impressive capabilities in unstructured conversations. Empowering LLMs with advanced prompting strategies such as reasoning and acting (ReAct) (Yao et al., 2022) has shown promise in solving complex tasks traditionally requiring reinforcement learning. In this work, we apply the ReAct strategy to guide LLMs performing task-oriented dialogue (TOD). We evaluate ReAct-based LLMs (ReAct-LLMs) both in simulation and with real users. While ReAct-LLMs severely underperform state-of-the-art approaches on success rate in simulation, this difference becomes less pronounced in human evaluation. Moreover, compared to the baseline, humans report higher subjective satisfaction with ReAct-LLM despite its lower success rate, most likely thanks to its natural and confidently phrased responses.

The growing number of generative AI-based dialogue systems has made their evaluation a crucial challenge. This paper presents our contribution to this important problem through the Dialogue System Technology Challenge (DSTC-12, Track 1), where we developed models to predict dialogue-level, dimension-specific scores. Given the constraint of using relatively small models (i.e. fewer than 13 billion parameters) our work follows two main strategies: employing Language Models (LMs) as evaluators through prompting, and training encoder-based classification and regression models.Our results show that while LM prompting achieves only modest correlations with human judgments, it still ranks second on the test set, outperformed only by the baseline.The regression and classification models, with significantly fewer parameters, demonstrate high correlation for some dimensions on the validation set. Although their performance decreases on the test set, it is important to note that the test set contains annotations with significantly different score ranges for some of the dimensions with respect to the train and validation sets.

This paper describes the approach we followed for our submission to the Second Run of the Automatic Minuting Shared Task. Our methodology centers around employing BART-based models fine-tuned on diverse summarization corpora. The segmented meeting transcripts are fed into the models, generating summaries that are subsequently combined and formatted into the final meeting minutes.