What makes you change your mind? An empirical investigation in online group decision-making conversations
Georgi Karadzhov | Tom Stafford | Andreas Vlachos
Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue
People leverage group discussions to collaborate in order to solve complex tasks, e.g. in project meetings or hiring panels. By doing so, they engage in a variety of conversational strategies where they try to convince each other of the best approach and ultimately reach a decision. In this work, we investigate methods for detecting what makes someone change their mind. To this end, we leverage a recently introduced dataset containing group discussions of people collaborating to solve a task. To find out what makes someone change their mind, we incorporate various techniques such as neural text classification and language-agnostic change point detection. Evaluation of these methods shows that while the task is not trivial, the best way to approach it is using a language-aware model with learning-to-rank training. Finally, we examine the cues that the models develop as indicative of the cause of a change of mind.
Opening up Minds with Argumentative Dialogues
Youmna Farag | Charlotte Brand | Jacopo Amidei | Paul Piwek | Tom Stafford | Svetlana Stoyanchev | Andreas Vlachos
Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022
Recent research on argumentative dialogues has focused on persuading people to take some action, changing their stance on the topic of discussion, or winning debates. In this work, we focus on argumentative dialogues that aim to open up (rather than change) people’s minds to help them become more understanding to views that are unfamiliar or in opposition to their own convictions. To this end, we present a dataset of 183 argumentative dialogues about 3 controversial topics: veganism, Brexit and COVID-19 vaccination. The dialogues were collected using the Wizard of Oz approach, where wizards leverage a knowledge-base of arguments to converse with participants. Open-mindedness is measured before and after engaging in the dialogue using a questionnaire from the psychology literature, and success of the dialogue is measured as the change in the participant’s stance towards those who hold opinions different to theirs. We evaluate two dialogue models: a Wikipedia-based and an argument-based model. We show that while both models perform closely in terms of opening up minds, the argument-based model is significantly better on other dialogue properties such as engagement and clarity.
Identifying robust markers of Parkinson’s disease in typing behaviour using a CNN-LSTM network
Neil Dhir | Mathias Edman | Álvaro Sanchez Ferro | Tom Stafford | Colin Bannard
Proceedings of the 24th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning
There is urgent need for non-intrusive tests that can detect early signs of Parkinson’s disease (PD), a debilitating neurodegenerative disorder that affects motor control. Recent promising research has focused on disease markers evident in the fine-motor behaviour of typing. Most work to date has focused solely on the timing of keypresses without reference to the linguistic content. In this paper we argue that the identity of the key combinations being produced should impact how they are handled by people with PD, and provide evidence that natural language processing methods can thus be of help in identifying signs of disease. We test the performance of a bi-directional LSTM with convolutional features in distinguishing people with PD from age-matched controls typing in English and Spanish, both in clinics and online.
- Andreas Vlachos 2
- Georgi Karadzhov 1
- Youmna Farag 1
- Charlotte Brand 1
- Jacopo Amidei 1
- show all...