diff --git a/ms-swift/.dev_scripts/ci_container_test.sh b/ms-swift/.dev_scripts/ci_container_test.sh
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..046a45fdb32228b898db5c7c791d74edf4c4e0e1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ms-swift/.dev_scripts/ci_container_test.sh
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+if [ "$MODELSCOPE_SDK_DEBUG" == "True" ]; then
+ # pip config set global.index-url https://pypi.tuna.tsinghua.edu.cn/simple
+ pip install -r requirements/tests.txt -i https://mirrors.aliyun.com/pypi/simple/
+ git config --global --add safe.directory /ms-swift
+ git config --global user.email tmp
+ git config --global user.name tmp.com
+
+ # linter test
+ # use internal project for pre-commit due to the network problem
+ if [ `git remote -v | grep alibaba | wc -l` -gt 1 ]; then
+ pre-commit run -c .pre-commit-config_local.yaml --all-files
+ if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then
+ echo "linter test failed, please run 'pre-commit run --all-files' to check"
+ echo "From the repository folder"
+ echo "Run 'pip install -r requirements/tests.txt' install test dependencies."
+ echo "Run 'pre-commit install' install pre-commit hooks."
+ echo "Finally run linter with command: 'pre-commit run --all-files' to check."
+ echo "Ensure there is no failure!!!!!!!!"
+ exit -1
+ fi
+ fi
+
+ pip install -r requirements/framework.txt -U -i https://mirrors.aliyun.com/pypi/simple/
+ pip install diffusers decord einops -U -i https://mirrors.aliyun.com/pypi/simple/
+ pip install autoawq -U --no-deps
+
+ # test with install
+ pip install .
+ pip install auto_gptq bitsandbytes deepspeed -U -i https://mirrors.aliyun.com/pypi/simple/
+else
+ echo "Running case in release image, run case directly!"
+fi
+# remove torch_extensions folder to avoid ci hang.
+rm -rf ~/.cache/torch_extensions
+if [ $# -eq 0 ]; then
+ ci_command="python tests/run.py --subprocess"
+else
+ ci_command="$@"
+fi
+echo "Running case with command: $ci_command"
+$ci_command
diff --git a/ms-swift/.dev_scripts/dockerci.sh b/ms-swift/.dev_scripts/dockerci.sh
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3e428d29048a9b9f4c120964b713b193c1590ebd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ms-swift/.dev_scripts/dockerci.sh
@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+#!/bin/bash
+MODELSCOPE_CACHE_DIR_IN_CONTAINER=/modelscope_cache
+CODE_DIR=$PWD
+CODE_DIR_IN_CONTAINER=/ms-swift
+echo "$USER"
+gpus='0,1 2,3'
+cpu_sets='0-15 16-31'
+cpu_sets_arr=($cpu_sets)
+is_get_file_lock=false
+CI_COMMAND=${CI_COMMAND:-bash .dev_scripts/ci_container_test.sh python tests/run.py --parallel 2 --run_config tests/run_config.yaml}
+echo "ci command: $CI_COMMAND"
+PR_CHANGED_FILES="${PR_CHANGED_FILES:-}"
+echo "PR modified files: $PR_CHANGED_FILES"
+PR_CHANGED_FILES=${PR_CHANGED_FILES//[ ]/#}
+echo "PR_CHANGED_FILES: $PR_CHANGED_FILES"
+idx=0
+for gpu in $gpus
+do
+ exec {lock_fd}>"/tmp/gpu$gpu" || exit 1
+ flock -n "$lock_fd" || { echo "WARN: gpu $gpu is in use!" >&2; idx=$((idx+1)); continue; }
+ echo "get gpu lock $gpu"
+
+ CONTAINER_NAME="swift-ci-$idx"
+ let is_get_file_lock=true
+
+ # pull image if there are update
+ docker pull ${IMAGE_NAME}:${IMAGE_VERSION}
+ if [ "$MODELSCOPE_SDK_DEBUG" == "True" ]; then
+ echo 'debugging'
+ docker run --rm --name $CONTAINER_NAME --shm-size=16gb \
+ --cpuset-cpus=${cpu_sets_arr[$idx]} \
+ --gpus='"'"device=$gpu"'"' \
+ -v $CODE_DIR:$CODE_DIR_IN_CONTAINER \
+ -v $MODELSCOPE_CACHE:$MODELSCOPE_CACHE_DIR_IN_CONTAINER \
+ -v $MODELSCOPE_HOME_CACHE/$idx:/root \
+ -v /home/admin/pre-commit:/home/admin/pre-commit \
+ -e CI_TEST=True \
+ -e TEST_LEVEL=$TEST_LEVEL \
+ -e MODELSCOPE_CACHE=$MODELSCOPE_CACHE_DIR_IN_CONTAINER \
+ -e MODELSCOPE_DOMAIN=$MODELSCOPE_DOMAIN \
+ -e MODELSCOPE_SDK_DEBUG=True \
+ -e HUB_DATASET_ENDPOINT=$HUB_DATASET_ENDPOINT \
+ -e TEST_ACCESS_TOKEN_CITEST=$TEST_ACCESS_TOKEN_CITEST \
+ -e TEST_ACCESS_TOKEN_SDKDEV=$TEST_ACCESS_TOKEN_SDKDEV \
+ -e TEST_LEVEL=$TEST_LEVEL \
+ -e MODELSCOPE_ENVIRONMENT='ci' \
+ -e TEST_UPLOAD_MS_TOKEN=$TEST_UPLOAD_MS_TOKEN \
+ -e MODEL_TAG_URL=$MODEL_TAG_URL \
+ -e MODELSCOPE_API_TOKEN=$MODELSCOPE_API_TOKEN \
+ -e PR_CHANGED_FILES=$PR_CHANGED_FILES \
+ --workdir=$CODE_DIR_IN_CONTAINER \
+ ${IMAGE_NAME}:${IMAGE_VERSION} \
+ $CI_COMMAND
+ else
+ docker run --rm --name $CONTAINER_NAME --shm-size=16gb \
+ --cpuset-cpus=${cpu_sets_arr[$idx]} \
+ --gpus='"'"device=$gpu"'"' \
+ -v $CODE_DIR:$CODE_DIR_IN_CONTAINER \
+ -v $MODELSCOPE_CACHE:$MODELSCOPE_CACHE_DIR_IN_CONTAINER \
+ -v $MODELSCOPE_HOME_CACHE/$idx:/root \
+ -v /home/admin/pre-commit:/home/admin/pre-commit \
+ -e CI_TEST=True \
+ -e TEST_LEVEL=$TEST_LEVEL \
+ -e MODELSCOPE_CACHE=$MODELSCOPE_CACHE_DIR_IN_CONTAINER \
+ -e MODELSCOPE_DOMAIN=$MODELSCOPE_DOMAIN \
+ -e HUB_DATASET_ENDPOINT=$HUB_DATASET_ENDPOINT \
+ -e TEST_ACCESS_TOKEN_CITEST=$TEST_ACCESS_TOKEN_CITEST \
+ -e TEST_ACCESS_TOKEN_SDKDEV=$TEST_ACCESS_TOKEN_SDKDEV \
+ -e TEST_LEVEL=$TEST_LEVEL \
+ -e MODELSCOPE_ENVIRONMENT='ci' \
+ -e TEST_UPLOAD_MS_TOKEN=$TEST_UPLOAD_MS_TOKEN \
+ -e MODEL_TAG_URL=$MODEL_TAG_URL \
+ -e MODELSCOPE_API_TOKEN=$MODELSCOPE_API_TOKEN \
+ -e PR_CHANGED_FILES=$PR_CHANGED_FILES \
+ --workdir=$CODE_DIR_IN_CONTAINER \
+ ${IMAGE_NAME}:${IMAGE_VERSION} \
+ $CI_COMMAND
+ fi
+ if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then
+ echo "Running test case failed, please check the log!"
+ exit -1
+ fi
+ break
+done
+if [ "$is_get_file_lock" = false ] ; then
+ echo 'No free GPU!'
+ exit 1
+fi
diff --git a/ms-swift/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/custom.md b/ms-swift/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/custom.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b894315f403796c11811e5c18023fbe118c82283
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ms-swift/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/custom.md
@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+---
+name: Custom issue template
+about: Describe this issue template's purpose here.
+title: ''
+labels: ''
+assignees: ''
+
+---
diff --git a/ms-swift/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.md b/ms-swift/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..af34cc57c55460662c849517c41e1cc5aea5aac6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ms-swift/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.md
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+---
+name: Feature request
+about: Suggest an idea for this project
+title: ''
+labels: ''
+assignees: ''
+
+---
+
+**Describe the feature**
+Please describe the feature requested here(请在这里描述需求)
+
+**Paste any useful information**
+Paste any useful information, including papers, github links, etc.(请在这里描述其他有用的信息，比如相关的论文地址，github链接等)
+
+**Additional context**
+Add any other context or information here(其他信息可以写在这里)
diff --git a/ms-swift/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md b/ms-swift/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a09bfad18763c14fa82bb0e5f680d593a9011340
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ms-swift/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+# PR type
+- [ ] Bug Fix
+- [ ] New Feature
+- [ ] Document Updates
+- [ ] More Models or Datasets Support
+
+# PR information
+
+Write the detail information belongs to this PR.
+
+## Experiment results
+
+Paste your experiment result here(if needed).
diff --git a/ms-swift/.github/SECURITY.md b/ms-swift/.github/SECURITY.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d549cbedbee1ea300d8f3dc90fdf742a3008df0b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ms-swift/.github/SECURITY.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+# Reporting Security Issues
+
+Usually security issues of a deep learning project come from non-standard 3rd packages or continuous running services. If you are suffering from security issues from our project, please consider reporting to us. We appreciate your efforts to responsibly disclose your findings, and will make every effort to acknowledge your contributions.
diff --git a/ms-swift/.github/workflows/citest.yaml b/ms-swift/.github/workflows/citest.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1590ec4cf053e79bb11c6094341c712ca1288a02
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ms-swift/.github/workflows/citest.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+name: citest
+
+on:
+ push:
+ branches:
+ - master
+ - "release/**"
+ paths-ignore:
+ - "setup.*"
+ - "requirements.txt"
+ - "requirements/**"
+ - "docs/**"
+ - "tools/**"
+ - ".dev_scripts/**"
+ - "README.md"
+ - "README_*.md"
+ - "NOTICE"
+ - ".github/workflows/lint.yaml"
+ - ".github/workflows/publish.yaml"
+
+ pull_request:
+ paths-ignore:
+ - "setup.*"
+ - "requirements.txt"
+ - "requirements/**"
+ - "docs/**"
+ - "tools/**"
+ - ".dev_scripts/**"
+ - "README.md"
+ - "README_*.md"
+ - "NOTICE"
+ - ".github/workflows/lint.yaml"
+ - ".github/workflows/publish.yaml"
+
+concurrency:
+ group: ${{ github.workflow }}-${{ github.ref }}
+ cancel-in-progress: true
+
+jobs:
+ unittest:
+ # The type of runner that the job will run on
+ runs-on: [self-hosted]
+ timeout-minutes: 240
+ steps:
+ - name: ResetFileMode
+ shell: bash
+ run: |
+ # reset filemode to allow action runner to delete files
+ # generated by root in docker
+ set -e
+ source ~/.bashrc
+ sudo chown -R $USER:$USER $ACTION_RUNNER_DIR
+
+ - name: Checkout
+ uses: actions/checkout@v3
+ with:
+ lfs: 'true'
+ submodules: 'true'
+ fetch-depth: ${{ github.event_name == 'pull_request' && 2 || 0 }}
+ - name: Get changed files
+ id: changed-files
+ run: |
+ if ${{ github.event_name == 'pull_request' }}; then
+ echo "PR_CHANGED_FILES=$(git diff --name-only -r HEAD^1 HEAD | xargs)" >> $GITHUB_ENV
+ else
+ echo "PR_CHANGED_FILES=$(git diff --name-only ${{ github.event.before }} ${{ github.event.after }} | xargs)" >> $GITHUB_ENV
+ fi
+ - name: Checkout LFS objects
+ run: git lfs checkout
+ - name: Run unittest
+ shell: bash
+ run: |
+ set -e
+ source /mnt/modelscope/ci_env.sh
+ bash .dev_scripts/dockerci.sh
diff --git a/ms-swift/.github/workflows/publish.yaml b/ms-swift/.github/workflows/publish.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7a0c7471a7e63c9a4e4520266b7720c6b2eb245f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ms-swift/.github/workflows/publish.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+name: release
+
+on:
+ push:
+ tags:
+ - 'v**'
+
+concurrency:
+ group: ${{ github.workflow }}-${{ github.ref }}-publish
+ cancel-in-progress: true
+
+jobs:
+ build-n-publish:
+ runs-on: ubuntu-22.04
+ #if: startsWith(github.event.ref, 'refs/tags')
+ steps:
+ - uses: actions/checkout@v2
+ - name: Set up Python 3.10
+ uses: actions/setup-python@v2
+ with:
+ python-version: '3.10'
+ - name: Install wheel
+ run: pip install wheel packaging setuptools==69.5.1
+ - name: Build ModelScope Swift
+ run: python setup.py sdist bdist_wheel
+ - name: Publish package to PyPI
+ run: |
+ pip install twine
+ twine upload dist/* --skip-existing -u __token__ -p ${{ secrets.PYPI_API_TOKEN }}
diff --git a/ms-swift/.gitignore b/ms-swift/.gitignore
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3c7cc70072bfe0eb80858616b22eee880988cd48
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ms-swift/.gitignore
@@ -0,0 +1,151 @@
+# Byte-compiled / optimized / DLL files
+tmp
+*.ttf
+__pycache__/
+*.py[cod]
+*$py.class
+test.py
+# C extensions
+*.so
+
+# Distribution / packaging
+.Python
+build/
+develop-eggs/
+dist/
+downloads/
+eggs/
+.eggs/
+lib/
+lib64/
+parts/
+sdist/
+var/
+wheels/
+*.egg-info/
+.installed.cfg
+*.egg
+/package
+/temp
+MANIFEST
+
+# PyInstaller
+# Usually these files are written by a python script from a template
+# before PyInstaller builds the exe, so as to inject date/other infos into it.
+*.manifest
+*.spec
+
+# Installer logs
+pip-log.txt
+pip-delete-this-directory.txt
+
+# Unit test / coverage reports
+htmlcov/
+.tox/
+.coverage
+.coverage.*
+.cache
+nosetests.xml
+coverage.xml
+*.cover
+.hypothesis/
+.pytest_cache/
+
+# Translations
+*.mo
+*.pot
+
+# Django stuff:
+*.log
+local_settings.py
+db.sqlite3
+
+# Flask stuff:
+instance/
+.webassets-cache
+
+# Scrapy stuff:
+.scrapy
+
+# Sphinx documentation
+docs/_build/
+
+# PyBuilder
+target/
+
+# Jupyter Notebook
+.ipynb_checkpoints
+
+# pyenv
+.python-version
+
+# celery beat schedule file
+celerybeat-schedule
+
+# SageMath parsed files
+*.sage.py
+
+# Environments
+.env
+.venv
+env/
+venv/
+ENV/
+env.bak/
+venv.bak/
+
+# Spyder project settings
+.spyderproject
+.spyproject
+
+# Rope project settings
+.ropeproject
+
+# mkdocs documentation
+/site
+
+# mypy
+.mypy_cache/
+
+.vscode
+.idea
+.run
+
+# custom
+*.pkl
+*.pkl.json
+*.log.json
+*.whl
+*.tar.gz
+*.swp
+*.log
+*.tar.gz
+source.sh
+tensorboard.sh
+.DS_Store
+replace.sh
+result.png
+result.jpg
+result.mp4
+output/
+outputs/
+wandb/
+*.out
+benchmarks/
+eval_output/
+eval_outputs/
+transformers/
+vlmeval/
+my_model/
+/data
+result/
+images
+/custom/
+megatron_output/
+
+# Pytorch
+*.pth
+*.pt
+
+# ast template
+ast_index_file.py
diff --git a/ms-swift/.pre-commit-config.yaml b/ms-swift/.pre-commit-config.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..558ddc5a8bafc5e7bdb5e64277315ea0bf87705f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ms-swift/.pre-commit-config.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+repos:
+ - repo: https://github.com/pycqa/flake8.git
+ rev: 4.0.0
+ hooks:
+ - id: flake8
+ exclude: |
+ (?x)^(
+ thirdparty/|
+ examples/|
+ tests/run.py
+ )$
+ - repo: https://github.com/PyCQA/isort.git
+ rev: 4.3.21
+ hooks:
+ - id: isort
+ exclude: |
+ (?x)^(
+ examples/|
+ tests/run.py|
+ swift/cli/sft.py
+ )$
+ - repo: https://github.com/pre-commit/mirrors-yapf.git
+ rev: v0.30.0
+ hooks:
+ - id: yapf
+ exclude: |
+ (?x)^(
+ thirdparty/|
+ examples/|
+ tests/run.py
+ )$
+ - repo: https://github.com/pre-commit/pre-commit-hooks.git
+ rev: v3.1.0
+ hooks:
+ - id: trailing-whitespace
+ exclude: thirdparty/|tests/run.py
+ - id: check-yaml
+ exclude: thirdparty/|tests/run.py
+ - id: end-of-file-fixer
+ exclude: thirdparty/|tests/run.py
+ - id: requirements-txt-fixer
+ exclude: thirdparty/|tests/run.py
+ - id: double-quote-string-fixer
+ exclude: thirdparty/|tests/run.py
+ - id: check-merge-conflict
+ exclude: thirdparty/|tests/run.py
+ - id: fix-encoding-pragma
+ exclude: thirdparty/|tests/run.py
+ args: ["--remove"]
+ - id: mixed-line-ending
+ exclude: thirdparty/|tests/run.py
+ args: ["--fix=lf"]
diff --git a/ms-swift/.pre-commit-config_local.yaml b/ms-swift/.pre-commit-config_local.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f6ef27d9a75117fccea0062835a4679e7f23dc77
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ms-swift/.pre-commit-config_local.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+repos:
+ - repo: /home/admin/pre-commit/flake8
+ rev: 4.0.0
+ hooks:
+ - id: flake8
+ exclude: |
+ (?x)^(
+ thirdparty/|
+ examples/|
+ tests/run.py
+ )$
+ - repo: /home/admin/pre-commit/isort
+ rev: 4.3.21
+ hooks:
+ - id: isort
+ exclude: |
+ (?x)^(
+ examples/|
+ tests/run.py|
+ swift/cli/sft.py
+ )$
+ - repo: /home/admin/pre-commit/mirrors-yapf
+ rev: v0.30.0
+ hooks:
+ - id: yapf
+ exclude: |
+ (?x)^(
+ thirdparty/|
+ examples/|
+ tests/run.py
+ )$
+ - repo: /home/admin/pre-commit/pre-commit-hooks
+ rev: v3.1.0
+ hooks:
+ - id: trailing-whitespace
+ exclude: thirdparty/|tests/run.py
+ - id: check-yaml
+ exclude: thirdparty/|tests/run.py
+ - id: end-of-file-fixer
+ exclude: thirdparty/
+ - id: requirements-txt-fixer
+ exclude: thirdparty/|tests/run.py
+ - id: double-quote-string-fixer
+ exclude: thirdparty/|tests/run.py
+ - id: check-merge-conflict
+ exclude: thirdparty/|tests/run.py
+ - id: fix-encoding-pragma
+ exclude: thirdparty/|tests/run.py
+ args: ["--remove"]
+ - id: mixed-line-ending
+ exclude: thirdparty/|tests/run.py
+ args: ["--fix=lf"]
diff --git a/ms-swift/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md b/ms-swift/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..804f94936bd28449ec7a2eb93447b3adbc475e71
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ms-swift/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
@@ -0,0 +1,132 @@
+# Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct
+
+## Our Pledge
+
+We as members, contributors, and leaders pledge to make participation in our
+community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body
+size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender
+identity and expression, level of experience, education, socio-economic status,
+nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual
+identity and orientation.
+
+We pledge to act and interact in ways that contribute to an open, welcoming,
+diverse, inclusive, and healthy community.
+
+## Our Standards
+
+Examples of behavior that contributes to a positive environment for our
+community include:
+
+* Demonstrating empathy and kindness toward other people
+* Being respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences
+* Giving and gracefully accepting constructive feedback
+* Accepting responsibility and apologizing to those affected by our mistakes,
+ and learning from the experience
+* Focusing on what is best not just for us as individuals, but for the overall
+ community
+
+Examples of unacceptable behavior include:
+
+* The use of sexualized language or imagery, and sexual attention or advances of
+ any kind
+* Trolling, insulting or derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
+* Public or private harassment
+* Publishing others' private information, such as a physical or email address,
+ without their explicit permission
+* Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a
+ professional setting
+
+## Enforcement Responsibilities
+
+Community leaders are responsible for clarifying and enforcing our standards of
+acceptable behavior and will take appropriate and fair corrective action in
+response to any behavior that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive,
+or harmful.
+
+Community leaders have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject
+comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are
+not aligned to this Code of Conduct, and will communicate reasons for moderation
+decisions when appropriate.
+
+## Scope
+
+This Code of Conduct applies within all community spaces, and also applies when
+an individual is officially representing the community in public spaces.
+Examples of representing our community include using an official e-mail address,
+posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed
+representative at an online or offline event.
+
+## Enforcement
+
+Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be
+reported to the community leaders responsible for enforcement at
+contact@modelscope.cn.
+All complaints will be reviewed and investigated promptly and fairly.
+
+All community leaders are obligated to respect the privacy and security of the
+reporter of any incident.
+
+## Enforcement Guidelines
+
+Community leaders will follow these Community Impact Guidelines in determining
+the consequences for any action they deem in violation of this Code of Conduct:
+
+### 1. Correction
+
+**Community Impact**: Use of inappropriate language or other behavior deemed
+unprofessional or unwelcome in the community.
+
+**Consequence**: A private, written warning from community leaders, providing
+clarity around the nature of the violation and an explanation of why the
+behavior was inappropriate. A public apology may be requested.
+
+### 2. Warning
+
+**Community Impact**: A violation through a single incident or series of
+actions.
+
+**Consequence**: A warning with consequences for continued behavior. No
+interaction with the people involved, including unsolicited interaction with
+those enforcing the Code of Conduct, for a specified period of time. This
+includes avoiding interactions in community spaces as well as external channels
+like social media. Violating these terms may lead to a temporary or permanent
+ban.
+
+### 3. Temporary Ban
+
+**Community Impact**: A serious violation of community standards, including
+sustained inappropriate behavior.
+
+**Consequence**: A temporary ban from any sort of interaction or public
+communication with the community for a specified period of time. No public or
+private interaction with the people involved, including unsolicited interaction
+with those enforcing the Code of Conduct, is allowed during this period.
+Violating these terms may lead to a permanent ban.
+
+### 4. Permanent Ban
+
+**Community Impact**: Demonstrating a pattern of violation of community
+standards, including sustained inappropriate behavior, harassment of an
+individual, or aggression toward or disparagement of classes of individuals.
+
+**Consequence**: A permanent ban from any sort of public interaction within the
+community.
+
+## Attribution
+
+This Code of Conduct is adapted from the [Contributor Covenant][homepage],
+version 2.1, available at
+[https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/2/1/code_of_conduct.html][v2.1].
+
+Community Impact Guidelines were inspired by
+[Mozilla's code of conduct enforcement ladder][Mozilla CoC].
+
+For answers to common questions about this code of conduct, see the FAQ at
+[https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq][FAQ]. Translations are available at
+[https://www.contributor-covenant.org/translations][translations].
+
+[homepage]: https://www.contributor-covenant.org
+[v2.1]: https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/2/1/code_of_conduct.html
+[Mozilla CoC]: https://github.com/mozilla/diversity
+[FAQ]: https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq
+[translations]: https://www.contributor-covenant.org/translations
diff --git a/ms-swift/CONTRIBUTING.md b/ms-swift/CONTRIBUTING.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c6d7f9b884869d9f0d1e63ef3a73a717dd2bcdec
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ms-swift/CONTRIBUTING.md
@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+# Contributor Guide
+
+_Welcome to offer PRs, bug reports, documentation supplements or other types of contributions to SWIFT!_
+
+## Table of Contents
+- [Code of Conduct](#-code-of-conduct)
+- [Contribution Process](#-contribution-process)
+- [Hardware support](#-Hardware-support)
+
+## 📖 Code of Conduct
+Please refer to our [Code of Conduct documentation](./CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md).
+
+## 🔁 Contribution Process
+### What We Need
+- New Technologies and New Models: SWIFT needs to support more open-source models and datasets, or new technologies that we have not paid attention to. If you are interested please submit a PR to us.
+- Technical Propagation: If you are interested in technical propagation, you are welcome to help us write tutorials, documents or videos on any website, and send us the link.
+- Community Contribution: You can write technical articles related to SWIFT, and submit them to us. After review and approval, we will publish them on the official ModelScope accounts (Zhihu, WeChat, etc.), with your name assigned.
+
+### Incentives
+- we will issue electronic certificates to contributors on behalf of the ModelScope community, to encourage your selfless contributions.
+- We will offer small souvenirs related to the ModelScope Community.
+- We will provide free A10 computing power during the development period. For more details, please refer to [Hardware-support](#-Hardware-support) section.
+
+### Submitting PR (Pull Requests)
+
+Any feature development is carried out in the form of Fork and then PR on GitHub.
+1. Fork: Go to the [SWIFT](https://github.com/modelscope/swift) page and click the **Fork button**. After completion, a SWIFT code repository will be cloned under your personal organization.
+2. Clone: Clone the code repository generated in the first step to your local machine and **create a new branch** for development. During development, please click the **Sync Fork button** in time to synchronize with the `main` branch to prevent code expiration and conflicts.
+3. Submit PR: After development and testing, push the code to the remote branch. On GitHub, go to the **Pull Requests page**, create a new PR, select your code branch as the source branch, and the `modelscope/swift:main` branch as the target branch.
+
+4. Write Description: It is necessary to provide a good feature description in the PR, so that the reviewers know the content of your modification.
+5. Review: We hope that the code to be merged is concise and efficient, so we may raise some questions and discuss them. Please note that any issues raised in the review are aimed at the code itself, not at you personally. Once all issues are discussed and resolved, your code will be approved.
+
+### Code Standards and Development Approach
+SWIFT has conventional variable naming conventions and development approaches. Please follow these approaches as much as possible during development.
+1. Variable names are separated by underscores, and class names are named with the first letter of each word capitalized.
+2. All Python indentation uses four spaces instead of a tab.
+3. Choose well-known open-source libraries, avoid using closed-source libraries or unstable open-source libraries, and avoid repeating the existing code.
+
+After the PR is submitted, SWIFT will perform two types of tests:
+- Code Lint Test: A static code compliance check test. please make sure that you have performed code lint locally in advance.
+```shell
+pip install pre-commit # In the swift folder
+pre-commit run --all-files # Fix the errors reported by pre-commit until all checks are successful
+```
+- CI Tests: Smoke tests and unit tests, please refer to the next section.
+
+### Running CI Tests
+Before submitting the PR, please ensure that your development code is protected by test cases, such as smoke tests for new features, or unit tests for various edge cases. Reviewers will also pay attention to this during code review. At the same time, there will be dedicated services running CI Tests, running all test cases, and the code can only be merged after the test cases pass.
+
+Additionally, since some important tests have been skipped due to long running time, to ensure that your logic is correct, you can run the test locally:
+```shell
+python tests/llm/test_run.py
+```
+Please make sure this test can pass normally.
+
+## ✅ Hardware support
+
+SWIFT will provide hardware support for developers, including free GPUs. If needed, please email us ([contact@modelscope.cn](mailto:contact@modelscope.cn)) or join our WeChat group:
+
+
diff --git a/ms-swift/LICENSE b/ms-swift/LICENSE
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..261eeb9e9f8b2b4b0d119366dda99c6fd7d35c64
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ms-swift/LICENSE
@@ -0,0 +1,201 @@
+ Apache License
+ Version 2.0, January 2004
+ http://www.apache.org/licenses/
+
+ TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE, REPRODUCTION, AND DISTRIBUTION
+
+ 1. Definitions.
+
+ "License" shall mean the terms and conditions for use, reproduction,
+ and distribution as defined by Sections 1 through 9 of this document.
+
+ "Licensor" shall mean the copyright owner or entity authorized by
+ the copyright owner that is granting the License.
+
+ "Legal Entity" shall mean the union of the acting entity and all
+ other entities that control, are controlled by, or are under common
+ control with that entity. For the purposes of this definition,
+ "control" means (i) the power, direct or indirect, to cause the
+ direction or management of such entity, whether by contract or
+ otherwise, or (ii) ownership of fifty percent (50%) or more of the
+ outstanding shares, or (iii) beneficial ownership of such entity.
+
+ "You" (or "Your") shall mean an individual or Legal Entity
+ exercising permissions granted by this License.
+
+ "Source" form shall mean the preferred form for making modifications,
+ including but not limited to software source code, documentation
+ source, and configuration files.
+
+ "Object" form shall mean any form resulting from mechanical
+ transformation or translation of a Source form, including but
+ not limited to compiled object code, generated documentation,
+ and conversions to other media types.
+
+ "Work" shall mean the work of authorship, whether in Source or
+ Object form, made available under the License, as indicated by a
+ copyright notice that is included in or attached to the work
+ (an example is provided in the Appendix below).
+
+ "Derivative Works" shall mean any work, whether in Source or Object
+ form, that is based on (or derived from) the Work and for which the
+ editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications
+ represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship. For the purposes
+ of this License, Derivative Works shall not include works that remain
+ separable from, or merely link (or bind by name) to the interfaces of,
+ the Work and Derivative Works thereof.
+
+ "Contribution" shall mean any work of authorship, including
+ the original version of the Work and any modifications or additions
+ to that Work or Derivative Works thereof, that is intentionally
+ submitted to Licensor for inclusion in the Work by the copyright owner
+ or by an individual or Legal Entity authorized to submit on behalf of
+ the copyright owner. For the purposes of this definition, "submitted"
+ means any form of electronic, verbal, or written communication sent
+ to the Licensor or its representatives, including but not limited to
+ communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control systems,
+ and issue tracking systems that are managed by, or on behalf of, the
+ Licensor for the purpose of discussing and improving the Work, but
+ excluding communication that is conspicuously marked or otherwise
+ designated in writing by the copyright owner as "Not a Contribution."
+
+ "Contributor" shall mean Licensor and any individual or Legal Entity
+ on behalf of whom a Contribution has been received by Licensor and
+ subsequently incorporated within the Work.
+
+ 2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
+ this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,
+ worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
+ copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of,
+ publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the
+ Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form.
+
+ 3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
+ this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,
+ worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
+ (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made,
+ use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work,
+ where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable
+ by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their
+ Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s)
+ with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You
+ institute patent litigation against any entity (including a
+ cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work
+ or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct
+ or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses
+ granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate
+ as of the date such litigation is filed.
+
+ 4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the
+ Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without
+ modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You
+ meet the following conditions:
+
+ (a) You must give any other recipients of the Work or
+ Derivative Works a copy of this License; and
+
+ (b) You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices
+ stating that You changed the files; and
+
+ (c) You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works
+ that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and
+ attribution notices from the Source form of the Work,
+ excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of
+ the Derivative Works; and
+
+ (d) If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its
+ distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must
+ include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained
+ within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not
+ pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one
+ of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed
+ as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or
+ documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or,
+ within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and
+ wherever such third-party notices normally appear. The contents
+ of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and
+ do not modify the License. You may add Your own attribution
+ notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside
+ or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided
+ that such additional attribution notices cannot be construed
+ as modifying the License.
+
+ You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and
+ may provide additional or different license terms and conditions
+ for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or
+ for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use,
+ reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with
+ the conditions stated in this License.
+
+ 5. Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise,
+ any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work
+ by You to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of
+ this License, without any additional terms or conditions.
+ Notwithstanding the above, nothing herein shall supersede or modify
+ the terms of any separate license agreement you may have executed
+ with Licensor regarding such Contributions.
+
+ 6. Trademarks. This License does not grant permission to use the trade
+ names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor,
+ except as required for reasonable and customary use in describing the
+ origin of the Work and reproducing the content of the NOTICE file.
+
+ 7. Disclaimer of Warranty. Unless required by applicable law or
+ agreed to in writing, Licensor provides the Work (and each
+ Contributor provides its Contributions) on an "AS IS" BASIS,
+ WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or
+ implied, including, without limitation, any warranties or conditions
+ of TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, or FITNESS FOR A
+ PARTICULAR PURPOSE. You are solely responsible for determining the
+ appropriateness of using or redistributing the Work and assume any
+ risks associated with Your exercise of permissions under this License.
+
+ 8. Limitation of Liability. In no event and under no legal theory,
+ whether in tort (including negligence), contract, or otherwise,
+ unless required by applicable law (such as deliberate and grossly
+ negligent acts) or agreed to in writing, shall any Contributor be
+ liable to You for damages, including any direct, indirect, special,
+ incidental, or consequential damages of any character arising as a
+ result of this License or out of the use or inability to use the
+ Work (including but not limited to damages for loss of goodwill,
+ work stoppage, computer failure or malfunction, or any and all
+ other commercial damages or losses), even if such Contributor
+ has been advised of the possibility of such damages.
+
+ 9. Accepting Warranty or Additional Liability. While redistributing
+ the Work or Derivative Works thereof, You may choose to offer,
+ and charge a fee for, acceptance of support, warranty, indemnity,
+ or other liability obligations and/or rights consistent with this
+ License. However, in accepting such obligations, You may act only
+ on Your own behalf and on Your sole responsibility, not on behalf
+ of any other Contributor, and only if You agree to indemnify,
+ defend, and hold each Contributor harmless for any liability
+ incurred by, or claims asserted against, such Contributor by reason
+ of your accepting any such warranty or additional liability.
+
+ END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
+
+ APPENDIX: How to apply the Apache License to your work.
+
+ To apply the Apache License to your work, attach the following
+ boilerplate notice, with the fields enclosed by brackets "[]"
+ replaced with your own identifying information. (Don't include
+ the brackets!) The text should be enclosed in the appropriate
+ comment syntax for the file format. We also recommend that a
+ file or class name and description of purpose be included on the
+ same "printed page" as the copyright notice for easier
+ identification within third-party archives.
+
+ Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner]
+
+ Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
+ you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
+ You may obtain a copy of the License at
+
+ http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+
+ Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
+ distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
+ WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
+ See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
+ limitations under the License.
diff --git a/ms-swift/MANIFEST.in b/ms-swift/MANIFEST.in
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8d41a23f39f96c67eab6d2afbc3e583ea19c108b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ms-swift/MANIFEST.in
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+recursive-include swift/utils *.py
+recursive-include swift/llm/dataset/data *.*
+recursive-include swift/llm/ds_config *.json
+recursive-include requirements *.txt
+recursive-include swift/plugin/loss_scale/config *.json
diff --git a/ms-swift/Makefile b/ms-swift/Makefile
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..96532199ef0d2f4e3d9e0262627e90856b76f1bd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ms-swift/Makefile
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+WHL_BUILD_DIR :=package
+DOC_BUILD_DIR :=docs/build/
+
+# default rule
+default: whl docs
+
+.PHONY: docs
+docs:
+ bash .dev_scripts/build_docs.sh
+
+.PHONY: linter
+linter:
+ bash .dev_scripts/linter.sh
+
+.PHONY: test
+test:
+ bash .dev_scripts/citest.sh
+
+.PHONY: whl
+whl:
+ python setup.py sdist bdist_wheel
+
+.PHONY: clean
+clean:
+ rm -rf $(WHL_BUILD_DIR) $(DOC_BUILD_DIR)
diff --git a/ms-swift/README.md b/ms-swift/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cc30b7ec3bdc143be22218309f9e0f9190a653c9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ms-swift/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,423 @@
+# SWIFT (Scalable lightWeight Infrastructure for Fine-Tuning)
+
+
+
+## 📖 Table of Contents
+- [Groups](#-Groups)
+- [Introduction](#-introduction)
+- [News](#-news)
+- [Installation](#%EF%B8%8F-installation)
+- [Quick Start](#-quick-Start)
+- [Usage](#-Usage)
+- [License](#-License)
+- [Citation](#-citation)
+
+
+## ☎ Groups
+
+You can contact us and communicate with us by adding our group:
+
+
+[Discord Group](https://discord.com/invite/D27yfEFVz5) | WeChat Group
+:-------------------------:|:-------------------------:
+ |
+
+
+## 📝 Introduction
+🍲 ms-swift is an official framework provided by the ModelScope community for fine-tuning and deploying large language models and multi-modal large models. It currently supports the training (pre-training, fine-tuning, human alignment), inference, evaluation, quantization, and deployment of 500+ large models and 200+ multi-modal large models. These large language models (LLMs) include models such as Qwen3, Qwen3-MoE, Qwen2.5, InternLM3, GLM4, Mistral, DeepSeek-R1, Yi1.5, TeleChat2, Baichuan2, and Gemma2. The multi-modal LLMs include models such as Qwen2.5-VL, Qwen2-Audio, Llama3.4, Llava, InternVL2.5, MiniCPM-V-2.6, GLM4v, Xcomposer2.5, Yi-VL, DeepSeek-VL2, Phi3.5-Vision, and GOT-OCR2.
+
+🍔 Additionally, ms-swift incorporates the latest training technologies, including lightweight techniques such as LoRA, QLoRA, Llama-Pro, LongLoRA, GaLore, Q-GaLore, LoRA+, LISA, DoRA, FourierFt, ReFT, UnSloth, and Liger, as well as human alignment training methods like DPO, GRPO, RM, PPO, KTO, CPO, SimPO, and ORPO. ms-swift supports acceleration of inference, evaluation, and deployment modules using vLLM and LMDeploy, and it supports model quantization with technologies like GPTQ, AWQ, and BNB. Furthermore, ms-swift offers a Gradio-based Web UI and a wealth of best practices.
+
+**Why choose ms-swift?**
+
+- 🍎 **Model Types**: Supports 500+ pure text large models, **200+ multi-modal large models**, as well as All-to-All multi-modal models, sequence classification models, and embedding models, **covering the entire process from training to deployment**.
+- **Dataset Types**: Comes with 150+ pre-training, fine-tuning, human alignment, multi-modal datasets, and supports custom datasets.
+- **Hardware Support**: Compatible with CPU, RTX series, T4/V100, A10/A100/H100, Ascend NPU, MPS, etc.
+- 🍊 **Lightweight Training**: Supports lightweight fine-tuning methods like LoRA, QLoRA, DoRA, LoRA+, ReFT, RS-LoRA, LLaMAPro, Adapter, GaLore, Q-Galore, LISA, UnSloth, Liger-Kernel.
+- **Distributed Training**: Supports distributed data parallel (DDP), device_map simple model parallelism, DeepSpeed ZeRO2/ZeRO3, FSDP, and other distributed training techniques.
+- **Quantization Training**: Supports training quantized models like BNB, AWQ, GPTQ, AQLM, HQQ, EETQ.
+- **RLHF Training**: Supports human alignment training methods such as DPO, GRPO, RM, PPO, KTO, CPO, SimPO, ORPO for both pure text and multi-modal large models.
+- 🍓 **Multi-Modal Training**: Supports training on different modalities like images, videos, and audio, for tasks like VQA, captioning, OCR, and grounding.
+- **Interface Training**: Provides capabilities for training, inference, evaluation, quantization through an interface, completing the whole large model pipeline.
+- **Plugin and Extension**: Supports custom model and dataset extensions, as well as customization of components like loss, metric, trainer, loss-scale, callback, optimizer.
+- 🍉 **Toolbox Capabilities**: Offers not only training support for large models and multi-modal large models but also covers the entire process of inference, evaluation, quantization, and deployment.
+- **Inference Acceleration**: Supports inference acceleration engines like PyTorch, vLLM, LmDeploy, and provides OpenAI API for accelerating inference, deployment, and evaluation modules.
+- **Model Evaluation**: Uses EvalScope as the evaluation backend and supports evaluation on 100+ datasets for both pure text and multi-modal models.
+- **Model Quantization**: Supports AWQ, GPTQ, and BNB quantized exports, with models that can use vLLM/LmDeploy for inference acceleration and continue training.
+
+
+## 🎉 News
+- 🎁 2025.05.11: GRPO now supports custom processing logic for reward models. See the GenRM example [here](./docs/source_en/Instruction/GRPO.md#customized-reward-models) .
+- 🎁 2025.04.15: The ms-swift paper has been accepted by AAAI 2025. You can find the paper at [this link](https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/35383).
+- 🎁 2025.03.23: Multi-round GRPO is now supported for training multi-turn dialogue scenarios (e.g., agent tool calling). Please refer to the [training script](https://idealab.alibaba-inc.com/examples/train/grpo/internal/train_multi_round.sh).
+- 🎁 2025.03.16: Support for Megatron's parallel training techniques is now available. Please see the [Megatron-SWIFT training documentation](https://swift.readthedocs.io/zh-cn/latest/Instruction/Megatron-SWIFT训练.html).
+- 🎁 2025.03.15: Fine-tuning of embedding models for both pure text and multimodal models is supported. Please check the [training script](https://idealab.alibaba-inc.com/examples/train/embedding).
+- 🎁 2025.03.05: The hybrid mode for GRPO is supported, with a script for training a 72B model on 4 GPUs (4*80G) available [here](https://idealab.alibaba-inc.com/examples/train/grpo/internal/train_72b_4gpu.sh). Tensor parallelism with vllm is also supported, with the training script available [here](https://idealab.alibaba-inc.com/examples/train/grpo/internal/multi_gpu_mp_colocate.sh).
+- 🎁 2025.02.21: The GRPO algorithm now supports LMDeploy, with the training script available [here](https://idealab.alibaba-inc.com/examples/train/grpo/internal/full_lmdeploy.sh). Additionally, the performance of the GRPO algorithm has been tested, achieving a training speed increase of up to 300% using various tricks. Please check the WanDB table [here](https://wandb.ai/tastelikefeet/grpo_perf_test?nw=nwuseryuzezyz).
+- 🎁 2025.02.21: The `swift sample` command is now supported. The reinforcement fine-tuning script can be found [here](https://idealab.alibaba-inc.com/docs/source/Instruction/强化微调.md), and the large model API distillation sampling script is available [here](https://idealab.alibaba-inc.com/examples/sampler/distill/distill.sh).
+- 🔥 2025.02.12: Support for the GRPO (Group Relative Policy Optimization) training algorithm has been added. Documentation is available [here](https://idealab.alibaba-inc.com/docs/source/Instruction/GRPO.md).
+- 🎁 2024.12.04: Major update to **ms-swift 3.0**. Please refer to the [release notes and changes](https://swift.readthedocs.io/zh-cn/latest/Instruction/ReleaseNote3.0.html).
+More
+
+- 🎉 2024.08.12: The ms-swift paper has been published on arXiv and can be read [here](https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.05517).
+- 🔥 2024.08.05: Support for using [evalscope](https://github.com/modelscope/evalscope/) as a backend for evaluating large models and multimodal models.
+- 🔥 2024.07.29: Support for using [vllm](https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm) and [lmdeploy](https://github.com/InternLM/lmdeploy) to accelerate inference for large models and multimodal models. When performing infer/deploy/eval, you can specify `--infer_backend vllm/lmdeploy`.
+- 🔥 2024.07.24: Support for human preference alignment training for multimodal large models, including DPO/ORPO/SimPO/CPO/KTO/RM/PPO.
+- 🔥 2024.02.01: Support for Agent training! The training algorithm is derived from [this paper](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2309.00986.pdf).
+
+
+## 🛠️ Installation
+To install using pip:
+```shell
+pip install ms-swift -U
+```
+
+To install from source:
+```shell
+# pip install git+https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift.git
+
+git clone https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift.git
+cd ms-swift
+pip install -e .
+```
+
+Running Environment:
+
+| | Range | Recommended | Notes |
+| ------------ |--------------| ----------- | ----------------------------------------- |
+| python | >=3.9 | 3.10 | |
+| cuda | | cuda12 | No need to install if using CPU, NPU, MPS |
+| torch | >=2.0 | | |
+| transformers | >=4.33 | 4.51 | |
+| modelscope | >=1.23 | | |
+| peft | >=0.11,<0.16 | ||
+| trl | >=0.13,<0.18 | 0.17 |RLHF|
+| deepspeed | >=0.14 | 0.14.5 | Training |
+| vllm | >=0.5.1 | 0.7.3/0.8 | Inference/Deployment/Evaluation |
+| lmdeploy | >=0.5 | 0.8 | Inference/Deployment/Evaluation |
+| evalscope | >=0.11 | | Evaluation |
+
+For more optional dependencies, you can refer to [here](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/requirements/install_all.sh).
+
+
+## 🚀 Quick Start
+
+10 minutes of self-cognition fine-tuning of Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct on a single 3090 GPU:
+
+### Command Line Interface
+
+```shell
+# 22GB
+CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 \
+swift sft \
+ --model Qwen/Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct \
+ --train_type lora \
+ --dataset 'AI-ModelScope/alpaca-gpt4-data-zh#500' \
+ 'AI-ModelScope/alpaca-gpt4-data-en#500' \
+ 'swift/self-cognition#500' \
+ --torch_dtype bfloat16 \
+ --num_train_epochs 1 \
+ --per_device_train_batch_size 1 \
+ --per_device_eval_batch_size 1 \
+ --learning_rate 1e-4 \
+ --lora_rank 8 \
+ --lora_alpha 32 \
+ --target_modules all-linear \
+ --gradient_accumulation_steps 16 \
+ --eval_steps 50 \
+ --save_steps 50 \
+ --save_total_limit 2 \
+ --logging_steps 5 \
+ --max_length 2048 \
+ --output_dir output \
+ --system 'You are a helpful assistant.' \
+ --warmup_ratio 0.05 \
+ --dataloader_num_workers 4 \
+ --model_author swift \
+ --model_name swift-robot
+```
+
+Tips:
+
+- If you want to train with a custom dataset, you can refer to [this guide](https://swift.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Customization/Custom-dataset.html) to organize your dataset format and specify `--dataset `.
+- The `--model_author` and `--model_name` parameters are only effective when the dataset includes `swift/self-cognition`.
+- To train with a different model, simply modify `--model `.
+- By default, ModelScope is used for downloading models and datasets. If you want to use HuggingFace, simply specify `--use_hf true`.
+
+After training is complete, use the following command to infer with the trained weights:
+
+- Here, `--adapters` should be replaced with the last checkpoint folder generated during training. Since the adapters folder contains the training parameter file `args.json`, there is no need to specify `--model`, `--system` separately; Swift will automatically read these parameters. To disable this behavior, you can set `--load_args false`.
+
+```shell
+# Using an interactive command line for inference.
+CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 \
+swift infer \
+ --adapters output/vx-xxx/checkpoint-xxx \
+ --stream true \
+ --temperature 0 \
+ --max_new_tokens 2048
+
+# merge-lora and use vLLM for inference acceleration
+CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 \
+swift infer \
+ --adapters output/vx-xxx/checkpoint-xxx \
+ --stream true \
+ --merge_lora true \
+ --infer_backend vllm \
+ --max_model_len 8192 \
+ --temperature 0 \
+ --max_new_tokens 2048
+```
+
+Finally, use the following command to push the model to ModelScope:
+
+```shell
+CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 \
+swift export \
+ --adapters output/vx-xxx/checkpoint-xxx \
+ --push_to_hub true \
+ --hub_model_id '' \
+ --hub_token '' \
+ --use_hf false
+```
+
+
+### Web-UI
+The Web-UI is a **zero-threshold** training and deployment interface solution based on Gradio interface technology. For more details, you can check [here](https://swift.readthedocs.io/en/latest/GetStarted/Web-UI.html).
+
+```shell
+SWIFT_UI_LANG=en swift web-ui
+```
+
+
+
+### Using Python
+
+ms-swift also supports training and inference using Python. Below is pseudocode for training and inference. For more details, you can refer to [here](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/notebook/qwen2_5-self-cognition/self-cognition-sft.ipynb).
+
+Training:
+
+```python
+# Retrieve the model and template, and add a trainable LoRA module
+model, tokenizer = get_model_tokenizer(model_id_or_path, ...)
+template = get_template(model.model_meta.template, tokenizer, ...)
+model = Swift.prepare_model(model, lora_config)
+
+# Download and load the dataset, and encode the text into tokens
+train_dataset, val_dataset = load_dataset(dataset_id_or_path, ...)
+train_dataset = EncodePreprocessor(template=template)(train_dataset, num_proc=num_proc)
+val_dataset = EncodePreprocessor(template=template)(val_dataset, num_proc=num_proc)
+
+# Train the model
+trainer = Seq2SeqTrainer(
+ model=model,
+ args=training_args,
+ data_collator=template.data_collator,
+ train_dataset=train_dataset,
+ eval_dataset=val_dataset,
+ template=template,
+)
+trainer.train()
+```
+Inference:
+
+```python
+# Perform inference using the native PyTorch engine
+engine = PtEngine(model_id_or_path, adapters=[lora_checkpoint])
+infer_request = InferRequest(messages=[{'role': 'user', 'content': 'who are you?'}])
+request_config = RequestConfig(max_tokens=max_new_tokens, temperature=temperature)
+
+resp_list = engine.infer([infer_request], request_config)
+print(f'response: {resp_list[0].choices[0].message.content}')
+```
+
+## ✨ Usage
+Here is a minimal example of training to deployment using ms-swift. For more details, you can check the [examples](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/tree/main/examples).
+
+- If you want to use other models or datasets (including multimodal models and datasets), you only need to modify `--model` to specify the corresponding model's ID or path, and modify `--dataset` to specify the corresponding dataset's ID or path.
+- By default, ModelScope is used for downloading models and datasets. If you want to use HuggingFace, simply specify `--use_hf true`.
+
+| Useful Links |
+| ------ |
+| [🔥Command Line Parameters](https://swift.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Instruction/Command-line-parameters.html) |
+| [Supported Models and Datasets](https://swift.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Instruction/Supported-models-and-datasets.html) |
+| [Custom Models](https://swift.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Customization/Custom-model.html), [🔥Custom Datasets](https://swift.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Customization/Custom-dataset.html) |
+| [LLM Tutorial](https://github.com/modelscope/modelscope-classroom/tree/main/LLM-tutorial) |
+
+### Training
+
+Supported Training Methods:
+
+| Method | Full-Parameter | LoRA | QLoRA | Deepspeed | Multi-Node | Multi-Modal |
+|------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
+| Pre-training | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/pretrain/train.sh) | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
+| Instruction Supervised Fine-tuning | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/full/train.sh) | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/lora_sft.sh) | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/tree/main/examples/train/qlora) | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/tree/main/examples/train/multi-gpu/deepspeed) | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/tree/main/examples/train/multi-node) | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/tree/main/examples/train/multimodal) |
+| DPO Training | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/rlhf/dpo.sh) | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/rlhf/dpo.sh) | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/multimodal/rlhf/dpo.sh) |
+| GRPO Training | [✅]((https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/grpo/internal/grpo_zero2.sh)) | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/grpo/internal/multi_node) | ✅ |
+| Reward Model Training | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/rlhf/rm.sh) | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/rlhf/rm.sh) | ✅ | ✅ |
+| PPO Training | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/rlhf/ppo.sh) | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/rlhf/ppo.sh) | ✅ | ❌ |
+| KTO Training | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/rlhf/kto.sh) | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/rlhf/kto.sh) | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/multimodal/rlhf/kto.sh) |
+| CPO Training | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/rlhf/cpo.sh) | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/rlhf/cpo.sh) | ✅ | ✅ |
+| SimPO Training | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/rlhf/simpo.sh) | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/rlhf/simpo.sh) | ✅ | ✅ |
+| ORPO Training | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/rlhf/orpo.sh) | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/rlhf/orpo.sh) | ✅ | ✅ |
+| Classification Model Training | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/seq_cls/qwen2_5/sft.sh) | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/seq_cls/qwen2_vl/sft.sh) |
+| Embedding Model Training | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/embedding/train_gte.sh) | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/embedding/train_gme.sh) |
+
+
+
+Pre-training:
+```shell
+# 8*A100
+NPROC_PER_NODE=8 \
+CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7 \
+swift pt \
+ --model Qwen/Qwen2.5-7B \
+ --dataset swift/chinese-c4 \
+ --streaming true \
+ --train_type full \
+ --deepspeed zero2 \
+ --output_dir output \
+ --max_steps 10000 \
+ ...
+```
+
+Fine-tuning:
+```shell
+CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 swift sft \
+ --model Qwen/Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct \
+ --dataset AI-ModelScope/alpaca-gpt4-data-en \
+ --train_type lora \
+ --output_dir output \
+ ...
+```
+
+RLHF:
+```shell
+CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 swift rlhf \
+ --rlhf_type dpo \
+ --model Qwen/Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct \
+ --dataset hjh0119/shareAI-Llama3-DPO-zh-en-emoji \
+ --train_type lora \
+ --output_dir output \
+ ...
+```
+
+
+### Inference
+```shell
+CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 swift infer \
+ --model Qwen/Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct \
+ --stream true \
+ --infer_backend pt \
+ --max_new_tokens 2048
+
+# LoRA
+CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 swift infer \
+ --model Qwen/Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct \
+ --adapters swift/test_lora \
+ --stream true \
+ --infer_backend pt \
+ --temperature 0 \
+ --max_new_tokens 2048
+```
+
+### Interface Inference
+```shell
+CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 swift app \
+ --model Qwen/Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct \
+ --stream true \
+ --infer_backend pt \
+ --max_new_tokens 2048
+```
+
+### Deployment
+```shell
+CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 swift deploy \
+ --model Qwen/Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct \
+ --infer_backend vllm
+```
+
+### Sampling
+```shell
+CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 swift sample \
+ --model LLM-Research/Meta-Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct \
+ --sampler_engine pt \
+ --num_return_sequences 5 \
+ --dataset AI-ModelScope/alpaca-gpt4-data-zh#5
+```
+
+### Evaluation
+```shell
+CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 swift eval \
+ --model Qwen/Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct \
+ --infer_backend lmdeploy \
+ --eval_backend OpenCompass \
+ --eval_dataset ARC_c
+```
+
+### Quantization
+```shell
+CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 swift export \
+ --model Qwen/Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct \
+ --quant_bits 4 --quant_method awq \
+ --dataset AI-ModelScope/alpaca-gpt4-data-zh \
+ --output_dir Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct-AWQ
+```
+
+### Push Model
+```shell
+swift export \
+ --model \
+ --push_to_hub true \
+ --hub_model_id '' \
+ --hub_token ''
+```
+
+## 🏛 License
+
+This framework is licensed under the [Apache License (Version 2.0)](https://github.com/modelscope/modelscope/blob/master/LICENSE). For models and datasets, please refer to the original resource page and follow the corresponding License.
+
+## 📎 Citation
+
+```bibtex
+@misc{zhao2024swiftascalablelightweightinfrastructure,
+ title={SWIFT:A Scalable lightWeight Infrastructure for Fine-Tuning},
+ author={Yuze Zhao and Jintao Huang and Jinghan Hu and Xingjun Wang and Yunlin Mao and Daoze Zhang and Zeyinzi Jiang and Zhikai Wu and Baole Ai and Ang Wang and Wenmeng Zhou and Yingda Chen},
+ year={2024},
+ eprint={2408.05517},
+ archivePrefix={arXiv},
+ primaryClass={cs.CL},
+ url={https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.05517},
+}
+```
+
+## Star History
+
+[](https://star-history.com/#modelscope/ms-swift&Date)
diff --git a/ms-swift/README_CN.md b/ms-swift/README_CN.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..833be0403cc4430afc7ee0877cd6934499c34813
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ms-swift/README_CN.md
@@ -0,0 +1,413 @@
+# SWIFT (Scalable lightWeight Infrastructure for Fine-Tuning)
+
+
+
+## 📖 目录
+- [用户群](#-用户群)
+- [简介](#-简介)
+- [新闻](#-新闻)
+- [安装](#%EF%B8%8F-安装)
+- [快速开始](#-快速开始)
+- [如何使用](#-如何使用)
+- [License](#-license)
+- [引用](#-引用)
+
+## ☎ 用户群
+
+请扫描下面的二维码来加入我们的交流群：
+
+[Discord Group](https://discord.com/invite/D27yfEFVz5) | 微信群
+:-------------------------:|:-------------------------:
+ |
+
+## 📝 简介
+🍲 ms-swift是魔搭社区提供的大模型与多模态大模型微调部署框架，现已支持500+大模型与200+多模态大模型的训练（预训练、微调、人类对齐）、推理、评测、量化与部署。其中大模型包括：Qwen3、Qwen3-MoE、Qwen2.5、InternLM3、GLM4、Mistral、DeepSeek-R1、Yi1.5、TeleChat2、Baichuan2、Gemma2等模型，多模态大模型包括：Qwen2.5-VL、Qwen2-Audio、Llama4、Llava、InternVL2.5、MiniCPM-V-2.6、GLM4v、Xcomposer2.5、Yi-VL、DeepSeek-VL2、Phi3.5-Vision、GOT-OCR2等模型。
+
+🍔 除此之外，ms-swift汇集了最新的训练技术，包括LoRA、QLoRA、Llama-Pro、LongLoRA、GaLore、Q-GaLore、LoRA+、LISA、DoRA、FourierFt、ReFT、UnSloth、和Liger等轻量化训练技术，以及DPO、GRPO、RM、PPO、KTO、CPO、SimPO、ORPO等人类对齐训练方法。ms-swift支持使用vLLM和LMDeploy对推理、评测和部署模块进行加速，并支持使用GPTQ、AWQ、BNB等技术对大模型进行量化。ms-swift还提供了基于Gradio的Web-UI界面及丰富的最佳实践。
+
+**为什么选择ms-swift？**
+- 🍎 **模型类型**：支持500+纯文本大模型、**200+多模态大模型**以及All-to-All全模态模型、序列分类模型、Embedding模型**训练到部署全流程**。
+- **数据集类型**：内置150+预训练、微调、人类对齐、多模态等各种类型的数据集，并支持自定义数据集。
+- **硬件支持**：CPU、RTX系列、T4/V100、A10/A100/H100、Ascend NPU、MPS等。
+- 🍊 **轻量训练**：支持了LoRA、QLoRA、DoRA、LoRA+、ReFT、RS-LoRA、LLaMAPro、Adapter、GaLore、Q-Galore、LISA、UnSloth、Liger-Kernel等轻量微调方式。
+- **分布式训练**：支持分布式数据并行（DDP）、device_map简易模型并行、DeepSpeed ZeRO2 ZeRO3、FSDP等分布式训练技术。
+- **量化训练**：支持对BNB、AWQ、GPTQ、AQLM、HQQ、EETQ量化模型进行训练。
+- **RLHF训练**：支持纯文本大模型和多模态大模型的DPO、GRPO、RM、PPO、KTO、CPO、SimPO、ORPO等人类对齐训练方法。
+- 🍓 **多模态训练**：支持对图像、视频和语音不同模态模型进行训练，支持VQA、Caption、OCR、Grounding任务的训练。
+- **界面训练**：以界面的方式提供训练、推理、评测、量化的能力，完成大模型的全链路。
+- **插件化与拓展**：支持自定义模型和数据集拓展，支持对loss、metric、trainer、loss-scale、callback、optimizer等组件进行自定义。
+- 🍉 **工具箱能力**：不仅提供大模型和多模态大模型的训练支持，还涵盖其推理、评测、量化和部署全流程。
+- **推理加速**：支持PyTorch、vLLM、LmDeploy推理加速引擎，并提供OpenAI接口，为推理、部署和评测模块提供加速。
+- **模型评测**：以EvalScope作为评测后端，支持100+评测数据集对纯文本和多模态模型进行评测。
+- **模型量化**：支持AWQ、GPTQ和BNB的量化导出，导出的模型支持使用vLLM/LmDeploy推理加速，并支持继续训练。
+
+## 🎉 新闻
+- 🎁 2025.05.11: GRPO中的奖励模型支持自定义处理逻辑，GenRM的例子参考[这里](./docs/source/Instruction/GRPO.md#自定义奖励模型)
+- 🎁 2025.04.15: ms-swift论文已经被AAAI 2025接收，论文地址在[这里](https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/35383)。
+- 🎁 2025.03.23: 支持了多轮GRPO，用于构建多轮对话场景的训练(例如agent tool calling)，请查看[训练脚本](examples/train/grpo/internal/train_multi_round.sh)。
+- 🎁 2025.03.16: 支持了Megatron的并行技术进行训练，请查看[Megatron-SWIFT训练文档](https://swift.readthedocs.io/zh-cn/latest/Instruction/Megatron-SWIFT训练.html)。
+- 🎁 2025.03.15: 支持纯文本和多模态模型的embedding模型的微调，请查看[训练脚本](examples/train/embedding)。
+- 🎁 2025.03.05: 支持GRPO的hybrid模式，4GPU(4*80G)训练72B模型的脚本参考[这里](examples/train/grpo/internal/train_72b_4gpu.sh)。同时支持vllm的tensor并行，训练脚本参考[这里](examples/train/grpo/internal/multi_gpu_mp_colocate.sh)。
+- 🎁 2025.02.21: GRPO算法支持使用LMDeploy，训练脚本参考[这里](examples/train/grpo/internal/full_lmdeploy.sh)。此外测试了GRPO算法的性能，使用一些tricks使训练速度提高到300%。WanDB表格请查看[这里](https://wandb.ai/tastelikefeet/grpo_perf_test?nw=nwuseryuzezyz)。
+- 🎁 2025.02.21: 支持`swift sample`命令。强化微调脚本参考[这里](docs/source/Instruction/强化微调.md)，大模型API蒸馏采样脚本参考[这里](examples/sampler/distill/distill.sh)。
+- 🔥 2025.02.12: 支持GRPO (Group Relative Policy Optimization) 训练算法，文档参考[这里](docs/source/Instruction/GRPO.md)。
+- 🎁 2024.12.04: **ms-swift3.0**大版本更新。请查看[发布说明和更改](https://swift.readthedocs.io/zh-cn/latest/Instruction/ReleaseNote3.0.html)。
+更多
+
+- 🎉 2024.08.12: ms-swift论文已经发布到arXiv上，可以点击[这里](https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.05517)阅读。
+- 🔥 2024.08.05: 支持使用[evalscope](https://github.com/modelscope/evalscope/)作为后端进行大模型和多模态模型的评测。
+- 🔥 2024.07.29: 支持使用[vllm](https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm), [lmdeploy](https://github.com/InternLM/lmdeploy)对大模型和多模态大模型进行推理加速，在infer/deploy/eval时额外指定`--infer_backend vllm/lmdeploy`即可。
+- 🔥 2024.07.24: 支持对多模态大模型进行人类偏好对齐训练，包括DPO/ORPO/SimPO/CPO/KTO/RM/PPO。
+- 🔥 2024.02.01: 支持Agent训练！训练算法源自这篇[论文](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2309.00986.pdf)。
+
+
+## 🛠️ 安装
+使用pip进行安装：
+```shell
+pip install ms-swift -U
+```
+
+从源代码安装：
+```shell
+# pip install git+https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift.git
+
+git clone https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift.git
+cd ms-swift
+pip install -e .
+```
+
+运行环境：
+
+| | 范围 | 推荐 | 备注 |
+| ------ |--------------| ---- | --|
+| python | >=3.9 | 3.10 ||
+| cuda | | cuda12 |使用cpu、npu、mps则无需安装|
+| torch | >=2.0 | ||
+| transformers | >=4.33 | 4.51 ||
+| modelscope | >=1.23 | ||
+| peft | >=0.11,<0.16 | ||
+| trl | >=0.13,<0.18 | 0.17 |RLHF|
+| deepspeed | >=0.14 | 0.14.5 |训练|
+| vllm | >=0.5.1 | 0.7.3/0.8 |推理/部署/评测|
+| lmdeploy | >=0.5 | 0.8 |推理/部署/评测|
+| evalscope | >=0.11 | |评测|
+
+更多可选依赖可以参考[这里](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/requirements/install_all.sh)。
+
+
+## 🚀 快速开始
+
+**10分钟**在单卡3090上对Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct进行自我认知微调：
+
+### 命令行
+```shell
+# 22GB
+CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 \
+swift sft \
+ --model Qwen/Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct \
+ --train_type lora \
+ --dataset 'AI-ModelScope/alpaca-gpt4-data-zh#500' \
+ 'AI-ModelScope/alpaca-gpt4-data-en#500' \
+ 'swift/self-cognition#500' \
+ --torch_dtype bfloat16 \
+ --num_train_epochs 1 \
+ --per_device_train_batch_size 1 \
+ --per_device_eval_batch_size 1 \
+ --learning_rate 1e-4 \
+ --lora_rank 8 \
+ --lora_alpha 32 \
+ --target_modules all-linear \
+ --gradient_accumulation_steps 16 \
+ --eval_steps 50 \
+ --save_steps 50 \
+ --save_total_limit 2 \
+ --logging_steps 5 \
+ --max_length 2048 \
+ --output_dir output \
+ --system 'You are a helpful assistant.' \
+ --warmup_ratio 0.05 \
+ --dataloader_num_workers 4 \
+ --model_author swift \
+ --model_name swift-robot
+```
+
+小贴士：
+- 如果要使用自定义数据集进行训练，你可以参考[这里](https://swift.readthedocs.io/zh-cn/latest/Customization/%E8%87%AA%E5%AE%9A%E4%B9%89%E6%95%B0%E6%8D%AE%E9%9B%86.html)组织数据集格式，并指定`--dataset `。
+- `--model_author`和`--model_name`参数只有当数据集中包含`swift/self-cognition`时才生效。
+- 如果要使用其他模型进行训练，你只需要修改`--model `即可。
+- 默认使用ModelScope进行模型和数据集的下载。如果要使用HuggingFace，指定`--use_hf true`即可。
+
+训练完成后，使用以下命令对训练后的权重进行推理：
+- 这里的`--adapters`需要替换成训练生成的last checkpoint文件夹。由于adapters文件夹中包含了训练的参数文件`args.json`，因此不需要额外指定`--model`，`--system`，swift会自动读取这些参数。如果要关闭此行为，可以设置`--load_args false`。
+
+```shell
+# 使用交互式命令行进行推理
+CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 \
+swift infer \
+ --adapters output/vx-xxx/checkpoint-xxx \
+ --stream true \
+ --temperature 0 \
+ --max_new_tokens 2048
+
+# merge-lora并使用vLLM进行推理加速
+CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 \
+swift infer \
+ --adapters output/vx-xxx/checkpoint-xxx \
+ --stream true \
+ --merge_lora true \
+ --infer_backend vllm \
+ --max_model_len 8192 \
+ --temperature 0 \
+ --max_new_tokens 2048
+```
+
+最后，使用以下命令将模型推送到ModelScope：
+```shell
+CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 \
+swift export \
+ --adapters output/vx-xxx/checkpoint-xxx \
+ --push_to_hub true \
+ --hub_model_id '' \
+ --hub_token '' \
+ --use_hf false
+```
+
+### Web-UI
+
+Web-UI是基于gradio界面技术的**零门槛**训练、部署界面方案，具体可以查看[这里](https://swift.readthedocs.io/zh-cn/latest/GetStarted/Web-UI.html)。
+
+```shell
+swift web-ui
+```
+
+
+### 使用Python
+ms-swift也支持使用python的方式进行训练和推理。下面给出训练和推理的**伪代码**，具体可以查看[这里](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/notebook/qwen2_5-self-cognition/self-cognition-sft.ipynb)。
+
+训练：
+```python
+# 获取模型和template，并加入可训练的LoRA模块
+model, tokenizer = get_model_tokenizer(model_id_or_path, ...)
+template = get_template(model.model_meta.template, tokenizer, ...)
+model = Swift.prepare_model(model, lora_config)
+
+# 下载并载入数据集，并将文本encode成tokens
+train_dataset, val_dataset = load_dataset(dataset_id_or_path, ...)
+train_dataset = EncodePreprocessor(template=template)(train_dataset, num_proc=num_proc)
+val_dataset = EncodePreprocessor(template=template)(val_dataset, num_proc=num_proc)
+
+# 进行训练
+trainer = Seq2SeqTrainer(
+ model=model,
+ args=training_args,
+ data_collator=template.data_collator,
+ train_dataset=train_dataset,
+ eval_dataset=val_dataset,
+ template=template,
+)
+trainer.train()
+```
+
+推理：
+```python
+# 使用原生pytorch引擎进行推理
+engine = PtEngine(model_id_or_path, adapters=[lora_checkpoint])
+infer_request = InferRequest(messages=[{'role': 'user', 'content': 'who are you?'}])
+request_config = RequestConfig(max_tokens=max_new_tokens, temperature=temperature)
+
+resp_list = engine.infer([infer_request], request_config)
+print(f'response: {resp_list[0].choices[0].message.content}')
+```
+
+## ✨ 如何使用
+
+这里给出使用ms-swift进行训练到部署到最简示例，具体可以查看[examples](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/tree/main/examples)。
+
+- 若想使用其他模型或者数据集（含多模态模型和数据集），你只需要修改`--model`指定对应模型的id或者path，修改`--dataset`指定对应数据集的id或者path即可。
+- 默认使用ModelScope进行模型和数据集的下载。如果要使用HuggingFace，指定`--use_hf true`即可。
+
+| 常用链接 |
+| ------ |
+| [🔥命令行参数](https://swift.readthedocs.io/zh-cn/latest/Instruction/%E5%91%BD%E4%BB%A4%E8%A1%8C%E5%8F%82%E6%95%B0.html) |
+| [支持的模型和数据集](https://swift.readthedocs.io/zh-cn/latest/Instruction/%E6%94%AF%E6%8C%81%E7%9A%84%E6%A8%A1%E5%9E%8B%E5%92%8C%E6%95%B0%E6%8D%AE%E9%9B%86.html) |
+| [自定义模型](https://swift.readthedocs.io/zh-cn/latest/Customization/%E8%87%AA%E5%AE%9A%E4%B9%89%E6%A8%A1%E5%9E%8B.html), [🔥自定义数据集](https://swift.readthedocs.io/zh-cn/latest/Customization/%E8%87%AA%E5%AE%9A%E4%B9%89%E6%95%B0%E6%8D%AE%E9%9B%86.html) |
+| [大模型教程](https://github.com/modelscope/modelscope-classroom/tree/main/LLM-tutorial) |
+
+### 训练
+支持的训练方法：
+
+| 方法 | 全参数 | LoRA | QLoRA | Deepspeed | 多机 | 多模态 |
+| ------ | ------ |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| ----- | ------ | ------ |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
+| 预训练 | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/pretrain/train.sh) | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
+| 指令监督微调 | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/full/train.sh) | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/lora_sft.sh) | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/tree/main/examples/train/qlora) | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/tree/main/examples/train/multi-gpu/deepspeed) | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/tree/main/examples/train/multi-node) | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/tree/main/examples/train/multimodal) |
+| DPO训练 | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/rlhf/dpo.sh) | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/rlhf/dpo.sh) | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/multimodal/rlhf/dpo.sh) |
+| GRPO训练 | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/grpo/internal/grpo_zero2.sh) | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/grpo/internal/multi_node) | ✅ |
+| 奖励模型训练 | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/rlhf/rm.sh) | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/rlhf/rm.sh) | ✅ | ✅ |
+| PPO训练 | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/rlhf/ppo.sh) | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/rlhf/ppo.sh) | ✅ | ❌ |
+| KTO训练 | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/rlhf/kto.sh) | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/rlhf/kto.sh) | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/multimodal/rlhf/kto.sh) |
+| CPO训练 | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/rlhf/cpo.sh) | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/rlhf/cpo.sh) | ✅ | ✅ |
+| SimPO训练 | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/rlhf/simpo.sh) | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/rlhf/simpo.sh) | ✅ | ✅ |
+| ORPO训练 | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/rlhf/orpo.sh) | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/rlhf/orpo.sh) | ✅ | ✅ |
+| 分类模型训练 | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/seq_cls/qwen2_5/sft.sh) | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/seq_cls/qwen2_vl/sft.sh) |
+| Embedding模型训练 | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/embedding/train_gte.sh) | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | [✅](https://github.com/modelscope/ms-swift/blob/main/examples/train/embedding/train_gme.sh) |
+
+
+预训练：
+```shell
+# 8*A100
+NPROC_PER_NODE=8 \
+CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7 \
+swift pt \
+ --model Qwen/Qwen2.5-7B \
+ --dataset swift/chinese-c4 \
+ --streaming true \
+ --train_type full \
+ --deepspeed zero2 \
+ --output_dir output \
+ --max_steps 10000 \
+ ...
+```
+
+微调：
+```shell
+CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 swift sft \
+ --model Qwen/Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct \
+ --dataset AI-ModelScope/alpaca-gpt4-data-zh \
+ --train_type lora \
+ --output_dir output \
+ ...
+```
+
+RLHF：
+```shell
+CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 swift rlhf \
+ --rlhf_type dpo \
+ --model Qwen/Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct \
+ --dataset hjh0119/shareAI-Llama3-DPO-zh-en-emoji \
+ --train_type lora \
+ --output_dir output \
+ ...
+```
+
+
+### 推理
+```shell
+CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 swift infer \
+ --model Qwen/Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct \
+ --stream true \
+ --infer_backend pt \
+ --max_new_tokens 2048
+
+# LoRA
+CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 swift infer \
+ --model Qwen/Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct \
+ --adapters swift/test_lora \
+ --stream true \
+ --infer_backend pt \
+ --temperature 0 \
+ --max_new_tokens 2048
+```
+
+### 界面推理
+```shell
+CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 swift app \
+ --model Qwen/Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct \
+ --stream true \
+ --infer_backend pt \
+ --max_new_tokens 2048 \
+ --lang zh
+```
+
+### 部署
+```shell
+CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 swift deploy \
+ --model Qwen/Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct \
+ --infer_backend vllm
+```
+
+### 采样
+```shell
+CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 swift sample \
+ --model LLM-Research/Meta-Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct \
+ --sampler_engine pt \
+ --num_return_sequences 5 \
+ --dataset AI-ModelScope/alpaca-gpt4-data-zh#5
+```
+
+### 评测
+```shell
+CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 swift eval \
+ --model Qwen/Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct \
+ --infer_backend lmdeploy \
+ --eval_backend OpenCompass \
+ --eval_dataset ARC_c
+```
+
+### 量化
+```shell
+CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 swift export \
+ --model Qwen/Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct \
+ --quant_bits 4 --quant_method awq \
+ --dataset AI-ModelScope/alpaca-gpt4-data-zh \
+ --output_dir Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct-AWQ
+```
+
+### 推送模型
+```shell
+swift export \
+ --model \
+ --push_to_hub true \
+ --hub_model_id '' \
+ --hub_token ''
+```
+
+
+## 🏛 License
+
+本框架使用[Apache License (Version 2.0)](https://github.com/modelscope/modelscope/blob/master/LICENSE)进行许可。模型和数据集请查看原资源页面并遵守对应License。
+
+## 📎 引用
+
+```bibtex
+@misc{zhao2024swiftascalablelightweightinfrastructure,
+ title={SWIFT:A Scalable lightWeight Infrastructure for Fine-Tuning},
+ author={Yuze Zhao and Jintao Huang and Jinghan Hu and Xingjun Wang and Yunlin Mao and Daoze Zhang and Zeyinzi Jiang and Zhikai Wu and Baole Ai and Ang Wang and Wenmeng Zhou and Yingda Chen},
+ year={2024},
+ eprint={2408.05517},
+ archivePrefix={arXiv},
+ primaryClass={cs.CL},
+ url={https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.05517},
+}
+```
+
+## Star History
+
+[](https://star-history.com/#modelscope/ms-swift&Date)
diff --git a/ms-swift/add_errorType.py b/ms-swift/add_errorType.py
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d771a2d9255995ff6413b98e8a1f32b5854c99b0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ms-swift/add_errorType.py
@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+import json
+
+# 读取原始的allcorrect.json文件
+with open('ms-swift/matched_scores_2_1.json', 'r', encoding='utf-8') as f:
+ allcorrect_data = json.load(f)
+
+# 读取merged_shuffled_train.json文件
+with open('/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/merged_shuffled_train.json', 'r', encoding='utf-8') as f:
+ merged_data = json.load(f)
+
+# 遍历allcorrect.json中的每个条目
+for entry in allcorrect_data:
+ # 获取key
+ key = entry.get('key')
+ if key:
+ # 在merged_data中查找对应的条目
+ if key in merged_data:
+ # 获取error_type并添加到entry中
+ error_type = merged_data[key].get('error_type')
+ entry['error_type'] = error_type
+
+# 将更新后的数据写回文件
+output_file = 'ms-swift/allcorrect_with_error_type.json'
+with open(output_file, 'w', encoding='utf-8') as f:
+ json.dump(allcorrect_data, f, ensure_ascii=False, indent=2)
+
+print(f"处理完成，结果已保存到 {output_file}")
+
+# 统计error_type的分布
+error_type_stats = {}
+for entry in allcorrect_data:
+ error_type = entry.get('error_type')
+ if error_type:
+ error_type_stats[error_type] = error_type_stats.get(error_type, 0) + 1
+ else:
+ error_type_stats['no_error_type'] = error_type_stats.get('no_error_type', 0) + 1
+
+print("\nError Type 统计:")
+for error_type, count in error_type_stats.items():
+ print(f"{error_type}: {count}")
diff --git a/ms-swift/allcorrect_with_error_type.json b/ms-swift/allcorrect_with_error_type.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..425fff85365a486dc176d2652dc6ca7494fb70e8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ms-swift/allcorrect_with_error_type.json
@@ -0,0 +1,3647 @@
+[
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--699.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--699",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant and logical. Speaker A answers Speaker B's questions about dinner plans and her cooking process directly. Speaker B asks relevant follow-up questions and raises a pertinent point based on past experience when Speaker A mentions \"winging it\". Speaker A acknowledges this point and clarifies her situation, then asks a relevant question for suggestions. The conversation flows naturally from one topic to the next, staying focused on the initial query about dinner. There are no instances of off-topic remarks, factual inaccuracies within the context of the dialogue, or illogical jumps in the conversation.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. The turn-taking is smooth, with brief pauses between speakers that are natural for conversation (generally around 1 second). There is one brief overlap where Speaker B starts speaking just as Speaker A is finishing a phrase, but this overlap is less than 2 seconds and sounds like a natural interruption or attempt to chime in. There are no prolonged pauses greater than 5 seconds or overlaps exceeding 2 seconds at any point in the dialogue.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2725.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2725",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are generally relevant and follow the flow of the conversation. Speaker A introduces the topic of studying old masters in history class, and Speaker B asks a relevant follow-up question. Speaker A then abruptly changes the topic to visiting art museums, but this topic is still related to art and old masters. The subsequent exchange about Rembrandt and Dali further links the two topics. The responses are logically consistent within the context of the dialogue.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is significantly impacted by a long pause. There is a brief overlap at 0:08 when Speaker A interrupts Speaker B, which Speaker A acknowledges. However, following this interruption, there is a prolonged pause of approximately 10 seconds before Speaker A resumes speaking (0:10-0:20). This pause is well over the 5-second threshold deemed harmful according to the instructions and disrupts the natural flow of the conversation.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2740.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2740",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in this dialogue are relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A expresses enjoyment of rollercoasters. Speaker B asks a relevant clarifying question about fear of heights, which is a common issue related to thrill rides. Speaker A addresses this question directly by explaining how they overcame the fear and reinforces their enjoyment, then extends an invitation. Speaker B accepts the invitation and follows up with a question about ride intensity, which is a logical concern after discussing overcoming fear but still being apprehensive. Speaker A then provides a relevant answer to this question. The conversation progresses naturally from the initial statement to exploring the possibility of going together, addressing potential concerns along the way.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is marred by a significant pause. There is a brief, acceptable interruption from Speaker B at the start (\"Sorry...\"). However, there is a prolonged pause of approximately 10 seconds between Speaker B saying \"That sounds great\" (0:27) and their next turn (0:37). This pause is well over the 5-second threshold and significantly disrupts the flow and naturalness of the conversation. While other turn-taking instances are okay (a short pause before A responds at 0:13 and 0:44), the long silence constitutes a significant issue in fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--548.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--548",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are consistently relevant to the topic of finding mortgage rates and experiences with obtaining mortgages. Speaker A's questions follow logically from Speaker B's statements, and Speaker B's answers directly address A's inquiries, providing information and sharing personal experiences. There are no instances of off-topic responses or logical inconsistencies in the dialogue.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. Turn-taking is generally smooth with appropriate transitions between speakers. There is one very brief overlap where Speaker A interjects with \"Sorry to cut in\", which is a natural occurrence in conversation and well below the 2-second threshold for problematic overlaps. There are no prolonged pauses exceeding 5 seconds at any point in the dialogue.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--540.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--540",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker B directly answers Speaker A's initial greeting and introduces a relevant topic (learning a song). Speaker A then interrupts slightly but asks a clarifying question directly related to B's statement. B answers clearly. The conversation then naturally progresses with A expressing her own relation to the topic (inability to play) and B asking a relevant follow-up question. A explains and asks for an opinion, which B addresses with alternative suggestions. The clarification about \"bad hands\" vs \"coordination\" is also relevant to the discussion about perceived inability. Finally, A offers a concluding thought related to B's self-assessment. All turns logically build upon the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. There is one brief overlap at 0:06 where Speaker A begins speaking just as Speaker B is finishing their previous turn. However, this overlap is very short (well under 2 seconds) and feels natural in a conversation, falling under the acceptable brief overlap category. There are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds) observed. Turn-taking is otherwise smooth, with speakers responding promptly to each other.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2019.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2019",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are highly relevant and logical throughout the dialogue. Speaker A initiates by asking about cooking preferences, and Speaker B provides a direct answer with a specific detail. Speaker A follows up naturally on this detail, asking about techniques. Speaker B then shifts slightly to ask about Speaker A's interest in learning, which is still related to the topic of cooking and teaching/sharing recipes. Speaker A confirms interest, and Speaker B responds positively and offers help. There are no instances of irrelevant answers or illogical turns.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency has significant issues due to prolonged pauses. There is a pause of approximately 10 seconds between Speaker A's short response \"Yes, I am\" at 0:20 and their next turn at 0:30. While other pauses are shorter and acceptable, this specific pause exceeds the 5-second threshold mentioned in the criteria, severely impacting the smoothness of the turn-taking. There are no significant overlaps.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2179.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2179",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "Chris thought: Okay, I need to evaluate the quality of this interactional dialogue based on Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\n\n1. **Response Relevance**:\n * Speaker A asks what Speaker B plays.\n * Speaker B answers \"cello\".\n * Speaker A confirms it's a string instrument and asks if it's difficult.\n * Speaker B says \"Not really\", explains why, mentions it's nice to play but there's pressure, especially during important performances.\n * Speaker A picks up on \"speaking of pressure\" and asks if Speaker B has performed in front of a large audience and how they handle it.\n * Speaker B confirms they have, says it can be nerve-wracking, but they focus on the music. They also circle back to clarify the pressure comes from expectations at concerts.\n * Speaker A acknowledges and understands the difficulty of balancing passion with performance demands.\n\n All responses seem relevant and follow the conversation logically. The speakers build upon each other's points (pressure -> performing in front of audience; clarifying where pressure comes from).\n\n2. **Interactional Fluency**:\n * Speaker A: 0:00 - 0:01\n * Speaker B: 0:01 - 0:02 (Slight overlap with A ending, very brief)\n * Speaker A: 0:03 - 0:06\n * Speaker B: 0:06 - 0:15 (Speaks for a longer turn)\n * Speaker A: 0:15 - 0:21 (Overlaps with B from ~0:15-0:16, cutting off B's sentence \"especially during important [performances]\"). This is a notable overlap where A interrupts B.\n * Speaker B: 0:21 - 0:34 (Responds to A's question, then finishes their thought about pressure). No long pauses.\n * Speaker A: 0:35 - 0:39\n\n There is one significant overlap where Speaker A cuts off Speaker B (~0:15-0:16). While brief overlaps are acceptable, this one interrupts the flow and prevents B from finishing their sentence naturally. It's longer than a mere brief overlap at a turn boundary. No long pauses (over 5s) are detected.\n\n3. **Overall Score**:\n * Response Relevance: Good. The conversation flows logically, and responses are on-topic.\n * Interactional Fluency: Has an issue with a significant overlap/interruption by Speaker A around the 15-second mark. This prevents it from being \"consistently appropriate and natural\".\n\n Given the notable fluency issue (interruption), it doesn't meet the \"Excellent\" criteria where both aspects are consistently appropriate. Therefore, it leans towards \"Poor\" due to a significant issue in Interactional Fluency, even though Response Relevance is good. The scoring criteria says \"Significant issues in *either* Response Relevance or Interactional Fluency\" leads to a score of 1. The interruption qualifies as a significant issue in fluency.\nThe responses are highly relevant to the ongoing conversation. Speaker B directly answers Speaker A's questions about the cello and playing it. Speaker A picks up on the mention of \"pressure\" and asks a related follow-up question about performing in front of a large audience. Speaker B answers this question and clarifies their earlier point about the source of pressure. Speaker A then acknowledges the difficulty based on Speaker B's explanation. The conversation flows logically and coherently.\n\n\n\nThe interaction generally flows well with appropriate turn-taking. There are no noticeable pauses over 5 seconds. However, there is a significant overlap around the 15-second mark where Speaker A begins speaking (\"Oh, speaking of pressure...\") before Speaker B has finished their sentence (\"...especially during important performances or every time\"). This interruption, lasting over a second and cutting off the other speaker's thought, is more than a brief, acceptable overlap and disrupts the natural flow.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 6,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2180.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2180",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe speakers discuss their relationship durations and how they celebrate anniversaries, particularly the contrast between elaborate and simple celebrations. Speaker A's initial question \"How do you like your anniversary?\" is slightly awkward phrasing, but the meaning (likely about celebration style or feeling about the milestone) is understood in context as they immediately pivot to how they celebrate their own anniversary. Speaker B's responses and questions flow logically from Speaker A's comments about keeping things simple, asking about keeping the relationship fresh and planning elaborate events. The discussion about balancing excitement and simplicity is a natural extension of the topic. Despite the minor phrasing issue, the responses are relevant and the conversation maintains logical consistency.\n\n\n\nThe turn-taking is generally smooth throughout the dialogue. However, there is a significant overlap starting around 0:14 where Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still talking about their anniversary. This overlap lasts for several seconds (approx. 3 seconds) and leads to Speaker A saying \"Sorry, Dan, what?\" (mistakenly using a name) before Speaker B continues their question. This prolonged overlap and the subsequent conversational repair indicate a noticeable breakdown in smooth turn-taking, exceeding acceptable brief overlaps. There are no pauses longer than 5 seconds. The fluency is impacted by the significant overlap.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--551.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--551",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is excellent. Speaker B directly answers Speaker A's initial question about reading habits, providing details about past reading (college, specific genres) and current habits. Speaker A then asks relevant follow-up questions based on Speaker B's previous statements (specifically mentioning philosophy and science textbooks). Speaker B's response about Plato's Republic directly addresses Speaker A's question about impactful philosophy books. Each turn logically follows the previous one, building on the conversation about reading and specific types of books mentioned.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is very good. Speaker A initiates the conversation smoothly. Speaker B responds promptly. There is a brief, acknowledged interruption by Speaker A at 0:08, which is common and acceptable in natural dialogue and doesn't significantly disrupt the flow (overlap is less than 2 seconds). Turn-taking is otherwise smooth with no noticeable long pauses (over 5 seconds) or prolonged overlaps. The conversation progresses naturally until the audio ends.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2287.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2287",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses between Speaker A and Speaker B are relevant and logical. Speaker A lists authors, and Speaker B asks for clarification on one of them. Speaker A provides details about the author. Speaker B then asks a related question about visiting museums dedicated to authors, which is a logical progression of the conversation. Speaker A responds to this question, mentioning a specific museum. Speaker B reacts positively and asks about travel plans related to the previously mentioned location (England). Speaker A confirms their desire to visit. The conversation maintains focus and each response follows naturally from the preceding turn.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is generally good, with appropriate turn-taking and minimal short overlaps (e.g., around 0:10, 0:26, 0:40). There are acceptable pauses after questions (e.g., after 0:14, after 0:30). However, there is a significant prolonged pause between 0:41 and 0:51 (approximately 10 seconds), which exceeds the 5-second threshold specified in the criteria. This long pause disrupts the flow and negatively impacts the interactional fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2107.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2107",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant to the conversation. Speaker A initiates by talking about dancing, Speaker B responds appropriately by stating they don't participate. Speaker A then asks about Speaker B's interests, and Speaker B answers. They find a common interest in video games, specifically \"League of Legends\". Both speakers share information and reactions related to the game. Speaker A mentions game events, Speaker B reacts and asks a follow-up question, and Speaker A responds. Speaker B then invites Speaker A to play, which is a logical step given the shared interest. The conversation flows logically and each turn builds on the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe turn-taking is mostly smooth at the beginning and end of the dialogue. However, there is a very significant pause lasting approximately 11 seconds (from 0:27/0:28 to 0:38) between Speaker A's statement/question about game events and Speaker B's response. This pause is well over the 5-second threshold specified in the instructions and significantly disrupts the flow and naturalness of the interaction. There are no significant overlaps. Due to the prolonged pause, the interactional fluency is negatively impacted.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2709.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2709",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are relevant and follow a logical progression. Speaker A introduces the topic of cooking. Speaker B responds with a lack of experience and hesitation. Speaker A provides encouragement. Speaker B reiterates their fear of messing up. Speaker A acknowledges this fear and offers a practical solution. The conversation flows naturally from one point to the next, with each speaker addressing the previous speaker's comments or concerns. There are no instances of off-topic or nonsensical responses.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is significantly affected by long pauses. There is a pause of approximately 10 seconds between Speaker A's first long turn (ending around 0:14) and Speaker B's response (starting around 0:24). There is another substantial pause of approximately 9 seconds between Speaker B's second turn (ending around 0:28) and Speaker A's final response (continuing around 0:37). These pauses are well over the 5-second limit mentioned as harmful, disrupting the smooth flow of the conversation. There is a brief overlap around 0:27, but it is short and within acceptable limits. However, the long pauses are a significant issue.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2221.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2221",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are mostly relevant to the conversation about finding a new mortgage. Speaker A initiates the topic and provides details about their current and desired mortgage payment. Speaker B asks relevant questions about the current cost and desired payment. However, Speaker B's question at 00:17 about what Speaker A plans to use the money for is slightly less relevant to the immediate topic of finding a *new mortgage* with a *lower payment*, although A answers it directly. Speaker B's final turn shifts the topic considerably to investment vs. debt payoff, which, while related to personal finance, is a departure from the original goal of finding a new mortgage. Despite this minor shift, the initial exchanges are relevant.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency starts reasonably well with clear turn-taking. However, there is a significant overlap starting at 00:22 where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A and continues speaking over them for several seconds. This is a prolonged overlap that disrupts the flow of the conversation and is harmful according to the criteria. There are no long pauses (over 5s). The main issue is the long overlap/interruption.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 4,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2707.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2707",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe response relevance in this dialogue has a notable issue. Speaker A states they want to shop for new clothes and asks for suggestions. Speaker B responds by asking what A is looking for, which is relevant. However, Speaker B then abruptly shifts the topic to the \"Sephora website\" and asks if Speaker A has checked out their \"new collection\" without specifying what kind of products (Sephora typically sells beauty/makeup). This causes confusion, as Speaker A immediately points out they thought they were talking about clothes. Speaker B attempts to rectify this by clarifying they meant makeup or accessories *from* Sephora to complement the new wardrobe, but the initial response was a significant departure from the topic of shopping for clothes themselves, which hinders the logical flow of the conversation at that point. Subsequent responses about the Sephora club and discounts are relevant within the new topic initiated by B, but the initial breakdown in relevance is a significant issue.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is quite good. The turn-taking is smooth with no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds) or lengthy overlaps (over 2 seconds). There are minor overlaps (e.g., when Speaker A expresses confusion about the topic shift), but these are brief and sound natural within a conversation. There is a pause of about 3 seconds between 0:47 and 0:50, which is well within the acceptable limit. Overall, the dialogue flows naturally without significant disruptions in timing or turn-taking.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2086.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2086",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are consistently relevant to the conversation topic. The dialogue progresses logically from initial greetings to discussing investments, specifically investment banking, and then exploring aspects of that industry based on the speakers' perspectives. Each turn builds appropriately on the previous one, maintaining focus and coherence.\n\n\n\nThe turn-taking is generally smooth with clear transitions between speakers. There is one brief overlap around 0:36, which is acceptable. However, there is a prolonged pause lasting approximately 10 seconds (from 0:37 to 0:47). This pause is significantly longer than the acceptable 5-second threshold, impacting the interactional fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--602.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--602",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are generally relevant and logical. Speaker A asks about gardening projects, Speaker B responds with what they are growing and discusses challenges (loss of space). Speaker A offers a relevant suggestion (vertical gardening). Speaker B accepts the suggestion and then slightly repeats information about the space loss before suggesting swapping recipes. Speaker A agrees to the recipe swap. Speaker A's follow-up question \"How's your garden growing?\" at 0:33 feels slightly redundant given the preceding discussion about the reduced space challenges, but Speaker B's response acknowledges the challenge. Overall, the conversation stays on topic and makes sense. There are no significant issues with accuracy or consistency.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is smooth and natural, with appropriate pacing between speakers. There are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds) or significant overlaps (over 2 seconds). The brief overlaps observed are natural and do not disrupt the flow of the conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--625.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--625",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are consistently relevant to the topic of making cheese. Speaker A initiates by asking if Speaker B makes cheese and mentioning their own attempt to learn. Speaker B responds by acknowledging the effort and asking for specifics (type of cheese). Speaker A provides the type (Cheddar) and details their experience. Speaker B comments on liking Cheddar, which is relevant to Speaker A's choice. Speaker A then asks how Speaker B learned, which is a logical follow-up to discussing making cheese. Speaker B provides the answer. All turns build upon the previous ones in a coherent manner.\n\n\n\nThe interaction exhibits good fluency within the provided audio segment. There are no noticeable pauses exceeding 5 seconds or overlaps extending beyond 2 seconds. The speakers take turns smoothly, and the conversation flows naturally without significant disruptions. The abrupt end of the audio does not reflect a fluency issue within the dialogue itself.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2778.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2778",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are generally relevant and follow the conversation flow, starting with concerts, moving to B's activities (writing songs), and discussing the challenges/enjoyment of that activity. However, there is a significant issue with Speaker B's statement at 0:39 (\"I just take a lot of drugs and listen to a lot of music.\"). This statement is completely irrelevant and inappropriate in the context of discussing balancing writing with other activities. It disrupts the logical consistency and flow of the conversation. Speaker A's subsequent question at 0:44 (\"Is there anything you actually like about your job other than...\") also feels slightly awkward given that B had just said it was \"the one thing I really enjoy,\" making the phrasing \"other than\" seem a bit contradictory or dismissive of B's earlier positive statement about enjoying it. However, the primary relevance issue is B's drug comment.\n\n\n\nThe turn-taking is mostly smooth, with minimal overlap (a brief one at 0:07 acknowledged by speaker A). However, there is a very long pause between Speaker B's response at 0:47 (\"Not really\") and their next utterance at 0:57. This pause is approximately 9 seconds long, which is significantly longer than the acceptable 5-second limit and severely impacts the naturalness and fluency of the interaction.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2771.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2771",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses generally demonstrate good relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A shares news about their baby sister, leading to a discussion about age, appearance, and height. The topic then shifts to having/liking kids and subsequently adoption, which is a related theme. While the transition from height to not liking kids is a little sudden, the responses that follow are relevant to the questions asked and the points being made. There are no obvious inaccuracies or inconsistencies in the content of the responses.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is mostly good with smooth turn-taking for large parts of the dialogue. There are some brief, acceptable pauses between turns. However, there is a very prolonged pause between 1:01 and 1:11 (approximately 10 seconds) between Speaker A's question and Speaker B's answer. This significantly disrupts the natural flow of the conversation and constitutes a major issue with interactional fluency according to the criteria (avoiding pauses over 5s). There are no prolonged overlaps.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--579.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--579",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are consistently relevant and logical throughout the dialogue. Speaker A introduces knitting and provides detailed explanations about what it is, the materials needed, different yarn types, and what can be made. Speaker B asks relevant clarifying questions based on A's information, such as \"what's knitting?\", \"is it difficult to learn?\", and \"what kind of shapes can you make?\". Both speakers build upon the previous turns effectively, ensuring a coherent conversation about the topic. There are no irrelevant tangents or illogical statements.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is smooth, with speakers taking turns without significant hesitation or delay. There are no prolonged pauses observed (over 5 seconds). While there is a brief overlap around the 0:36 mark when speaker B interrupts, this is explicitly acknowledged by B (\"Sorry to interrupt...\") and is a natural part of a dynamic conversation, not indicative of a fluency issue. There are no other noticeable or disruptive overlaps. The pacing feels natural for the exchange.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2858.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2858",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A introduces Belgian waffles, Speaker B asks a relevant follow-up question about where to get them, and Speaker A provides a location and description. Speaker B then transitions to a related topic (other dishes at the mentioned breakfast place and finding new spots), which is a natural shift within the context of discussing a food place. Speaker A responds to this and then brings the conversation back to the topic of making waffles at home, maintaining relevance.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is affected by a significant overlap. At approximately 0:10, Speaker B interrupts Speaker A while she is still speaking (\"They're really fluffy and...\"). This overlap is more than a brief interruption and impacts the smooth turn-taking. There are no other significant pauses (over 5s) or extended overlaps (over 2s, except for the interruption itself) observed. However, the one noticeable overlap disrupts the flow.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2166.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2166",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant to the questions asked and the topics being discussed. Speaker A asks about video games, and Speaker B confirms they play. Speaker A then asks about other games besides the one initially mentioned, leading Speaker B to focus on retro games. Speaker A follows up by asking for specific examples and platforms, which Speaker B provides. The conversation flows logically from general gaming to retro games, specific titles, and platforms. There are no instances of off-topic replies or illogical statements. Response relevance is good.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency has a significant issue. While some minor pauses (e.g., 0:11-0:14, 0:43-0:45) and a brief overlap (0:27-0:28) are acceptable, there is a very long pause between approximately 0:28 and 0:38. This pause lasts for about 10 seconds, which is well over the 5-second threshold for acceptable pauses and severely disrupts the flow of the conversation.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--407.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--407",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is consistently high. Speakers A and B engage in a natural conversation about investments, with each turn logically following the previous one. Speaker A initiates the topic and asks relevant questions about B's investment habits, portfolio size, and learning methods. Speaker B provides direct and relevant answers. When the topic shifts to Speaker A's investing, A also provides relevant information and advice. The interruption by Speaker B to ask about specific book recommendations is relevant to Speaker A's earlier comment about reading financial books. The discussion then smoothly returns to A's portfolio before shifting to potential future investments. The conversation flows coherently from general interest to specific details and advice. There is one slight oddity at the very end where Speaker B asks \"Have you done any investing yet?\" immediately after Speaker A has discussed their $10,000 portfolio and investment plans. This is a minor lapse in logical consistency right at the conclusion of the clip, but the vast majority of the interaction demonstrates excellent response relevance.\n\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is smooth and natural throughout the dialogue. There are no long pauses (over 5 seconds) that would disrupt the flow of conversation. There are some very brief overlaps (e.g., around 0:05 and the intentional interruption at 1:05), but these are short and typical of spontaneous speech, not prolonged (over 2 seconds) or disruptive. The speakers transition between turns effectively, allowing the conversation to proceed at a comfortable pace.\n\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--446.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--446",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are generally relevant and follow the conversation's flow, which revolves around gardening and flowers. Speakers answer questions posed to them and elaborate on their points. Speaker B's interruption at 00:25 is abrupt, cutting off Speaker A, but the topic introduced (soil type for tulips) is directly relevant to Speaker A's previous statement about wanting to plant tulips. Speaker A acknowledges this point as relevant (\"That's a good point\"). Speaker A then returns to another flower previously mentioned by Speaker B (lilacs) and raises an issue, to which Speaker B provides a relevant suggestion. Speaker A's response \"Oh, that sucks\" at 00:44 is a somewhat vague reaction to Speaker B's suggestion or the underlying difficulty, but Speaker B interprets it correctly and responds relevantly (\"Yeah, it's hard to get them to live\"). Overall, despite a minor interruption and a slightly less clear response, the core of the interaction maintains logical consistency and relevance.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is mostly good. There are no pauses exceeding 5 seconds. There is one instance of overlapping speech around 00:25 when Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. This overlap is brief (less than 2 seconds) but results in Speaker B taking the turn mid-sentence from Speaker A. This counts as a minor fluency issue, as it disrupts the smooth turn-taking. However, it is the only significant disruption. There are no other prolonged overlaps or pauses observed. The conversation generally flows well between turns.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2233.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2233",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "00:thought\nThe user wants me to evaluate a two-person interactional dialogue based on Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\n\nI need to listen to the audio and provide analysis for both criteria in the specified format, followed by an overall score (1 or 2).\n\n**Plan:**\n1. Listen to the audio.\n2. Evaluate the Response Relevance: Are the speakers responding appropriately and logically to each other's questions and statements?\n3. Evaluate the Interactional Fluency: Is the turn-taking smooth? Are there long pauses (>5s) or long overlaps (>2s)?\n4. Write the analysis for Response Relevance under ``.\n5. Write the analysis for Interactional Fluency under ``.\n6. Determine the overall score based on the criteria.\n7. Format the output strictly according to the template.\n\n**Audio Analysis:**\n- Speaker A asks about working at REI and buying a tent for a trip. (0:00-0:04)\n- Speaker B confirms working there and offers help, asks about the kind of tent needed. (0:05-0:09) -> Relevant response.\n- Speaker A says they don't know yet and asks for suggestions. (0:10-0:14) -> Relevant response.\n- Speaker B asks about the camping location (car, backpacking, campsite) to help with suggestions. (0:15-0:21) -> Relevant question based on A's lack of info.\n- Speaker A says car camping is probably best, can't carry a lot of gear. (0:22-0:28) -> Relevant response.\n- Speaker B acknowledges and asks about type of tent preference. (0:28-0:31) -> Relevant question.\n- Speaker A says not really, wants it easy to put up and store. (0:32-0:37) -> Relevant response.\n- Speaker B acknowledges, offers recommendations, asks about 2-person or 3-person tent. (0:38-0:43) -> Relevant response and question.\n- Speaker A starts to ask about other gear (\"Actually, before we go into that, do you think I need to buy any additional gear like a sleeping bag or mat?\"). (0:43-0:49) -> Relevant tangent question.\n- Speaker B starts to answer the 2/3 person tent question (\"The size can affect how much space you have inside and how easy it is to set up...\") and gets overlapped by Speaker A. (0:44-0:48) -> Overlap detected.\n- Speaker B then answers the sleeping bag/mat question (\"Yes, you'll definitely need a sleeping bag and a sleeping mat for comfort\") and redirects back to the tent size question (\"but back to the tent, do you prefer a two-person or three-person tent?\"). (0:49-0:56) -> Relevant response and redirection.\n- Speaker A says they don't know and asks if it matters. (0:57-0:59) -> Relevant response/question.\n- Speaker B says it doesn't matter too much but recommends a 2-person tent and explains why (entrance, vestibule). (1:00-1:15) -> Relevant response and explanation.\n\n**Response Relevance Check:**\n- Speakers are asking and answering relevant questions throughout the dialogue.\n- Speaker B is guiding Speaker A based on their needs and constraints (car camping, easy setup/store).\n- Speaker A asks a relevant follow-up question about other gear.\n- Speaker B answers the follow-up and brings it back to the main topic (tent size).\n- All responses are logically consistent within the context of buying a tent for car camping.\n- Response Relevance seems excellent.\n\n**Interactional Fluency Check:**\n- Turn-taking is generally smooth.\n- There are no noticeable long pauses (>5s).\n- There is one significant overlap between 0:44 and 0:48, where Speaker A starts a new question while Speaker B is still talking. The overlap is more than 2 seconds.\n- Small overlaps or brief pauses are acceptable, but this overlap is prolonged and disrupts the flow.\n- Interactional Fluency has an issue due to the prolonged overlap.\n\n**Scoring:**\n- Response Relevance is Excellent.\n- Interactional Fluency has a significant issue (prolonged overlap > 2s).\n- According to the criteria: `1` (Poor): Significant issues in either Response Relevance OR Interactional Fluency. `2` (Excellent): Both are consistently appropriate and natural.\n- Since there is a significant issue in Interactional Fluency (the long overlap), the score must be 1.\n\n**Final Output Structure:**\n\n[Analysis and reasons for Response Relevance - likely excellent]\n\n\n[Analysis and reasons for Interactional Fluency - highlighting the overlap issue]\n\n1\nThe responses are highly relevant throughout the dialogue. Speaker A asks about buying a tent, and Speaker B offers assistance and asks pertinent questions to narrow down the options (kind of tent, where they want to camp, preferences). Speaker A provides relevant information (car camping, difficulty carrying gear, desire for easy setup/storage). Speaker B uses this information to guide the recommendations, asking about tent size. Speaker A also asks a relevant follow-up question about needing other gear, which Speaker B answers before returning to the tent topic. The questions and answers flow logically and build upon each other to help the customer find a suitable tent. Response relevance is excellent.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is mostly good with smooth turn-taking and no significant pauses. However, there is a prolonged overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B from approximately 0:44 to 0:48. Speaker A begins asking about additional gear while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence about the tent size impacting space and setup ease. This overlap is significant (over 2 seconds) and disrupts the natural flow of the conversation, making the fluency less than consistently appropriate.\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--558.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--558",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "thought\nThe user wants me to evaluate a two-person dialogue based on Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\n\n1. **Analyze Response Relevance:**\n * Speaker A proposes cooking together.\n * Speaker B responds positively (\"That's not a bad idea\") but expresses a lack of cooking knowledge (\"I don't know much about cooking\").\n * Speaker A addresses this by offering to teach (\"Don't worry, I'll teach you\") and asks for ingredients.\n * Speaker B interrupts to clarify what ingredients are needed (\"what kind of ingredients do you need?\").\n * Speaker A provides specific examples (vegetables, pasta, chicken, spices).\n * Speaker B confirms understanding and willingness to get a variety (\"Got it. I'll make sure to get a variety\").\n * They arrange a time (\"See you in 10 minutes\").\n * Speaker A confirms (\"Great. See you soon\").\n * All turns seem relevant and build logically upon the previous turn.\n\n2. **Analyze Interactional Fluency:**\n * Listen for long pauses (over 5s) or significant overlaps (2s or more).\n * 00:00 - 00:07: Speaker A speaks.\n * 00:07 - 00:11: Speaker B responds. No long pause.\n * 00:11 - 00:15: Speaker A responds. No long pause.\n * 00:15 - 00:20: Speaker B interrupts (at 00:15). This is an overlap, but it seems intentional for clarification (\"Sorry to interrupt, but...\"). It's brief and immediately clarifies the intent. The overlap itself is short, not 2 seconds or more.\n * 00:21 - 00:29: Speaker A responds. No long pause.\n * 00:29 - 00:32: Speaker B responds. There's a slight overlap at 00:29 (\"spices as well, but...\" / \"Got it\"). Again, brief and not prolonged.\n * 00:32 - 00:34: Speaker B finishes and sets a time.\n * 00:34 - 00:36: Speaker A confirms. No long pause.\n * The turn-taking is mostly smooth, with only very brief, acceptable overlaps that serve a purpose (interruption for clarification, confirmation). No prolonged pauses.\n\n3. **Determine Overall Score:**\n * Response Relevance: Excellent. Both speakers stay on topic, understand each other, and build the conversation logically towards getting ingredients and meeting up.\n * Interactional Fluency: Excellent. Turn-taking is smooth with only minor, acceptable overlaps and no long pauses.\n * Both aspects are consistently appropriate and natural.\n\n4. **Format the Output:**\n * Use the `` tag and provide the analysis.\n * Use the `` tag and provide the analysis.\n * Use the `` tag and provide the score (2).\nThe responses are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A proposes an activity (cooking), Speaker B acknowledges the idea and raises a relevant point (lack of knowledge), Speaker A addresses this and asks for necessary items (ingredients), Speaker B seeks clarification on the specific items needed, and Speaker A provides the details. The conversation flows naturally towards the agreed-upon next steps (getting ingredients and meeting).\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is smooth with no long pauses (over 5 seconds). There are brief, natural overlaps when Speaker B interrupts to clarify or confirms understanding, but these are short and do not impede the conversation flow; they are less than 2 seconds and seem intentional within the conversational context.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--589.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--589",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are consistently relevant to the questions and statements made by the other speaker. Speaker B answers Speaker A's questions directly (\"How are you doing?\", \"What have you been up to?\"). Speaker A's follow-up question about fixing the sprinklers is a direct response to Speaker B's previous comment. The dialogue flows logically from one turn to the next, with each speaker building upon the previous contribution. There are no instances of off-topic remarks or misunderstandings.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. Turn-taking is smooth, with quick responses from both speakers. There are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds). There is a very brief overlap at 0:13 when Speaker A asks about fixing the sprinklers while Speaker B is still speaking, but this overlap is very short (less than 2 seconds) and seems like a natural, non-disruptive part of conversation rather than a prolonged interruption. Overall, the rhythm of the dialogue feels natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--626.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--626",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are generally relevant to the conversation's progression. Speaker A introduces a sensitive topic about their father's health, and Speaker B responds appropriately with sympathy and follow-up questions. Speaker A shares a related past experience, which is relevant context. There is a brief moment of confusion when Speaker A says a contradictory name (\"John\") after stating they couldn't remember, but Speaker A quickly corrects themselves (\"Joan\") and provides a reason (long day), which maintains coherence. Speaker B's final abrupt shift to watching a game is less relevant to the ongoing emotional topic but is a valid, albeit socially awkward, way to end the specific line of conversation or transition to a different activity. Overall, there are no significant issues with response accuracy or logical consistency that disrupt the flow beyond minor, quickly corrected errors.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. Turn-taking is relatively smooth with minimal pauses. There are several brief overlaps, but they are short (less than 2 seconds) and sound natural, common in spontaneous conversation. There are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds) or disruptive, long overlaps. The rhythm of the conversation feels natural for a personal dialogue.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2230.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2230",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nAnalysing Response Relevance:\nThe interaction starts with standard greetings which are relevant. Speaker A mentions seeing \"Amy\" and being impressed by the visuals. Speaker B then asks about \"Curio\" and its visuals. This appears to be either a mishearing of \"Amy\" as \"Curio\" or a non-sequitur topic change, making B's response not directly relevant to A's statement about \"Amy\". Speaker A then interjects, saying \"Sorry to jump in,\" and continues to talk about \"Amy,\" effectively ignoring or overriding B's question about \"Curio.\" Speaker B then says \"That's cool\" in response to A finishing their description of \"Amy,\" but immediately pivots to talking about a completely different movie, \"Lincoln.\" While introducing a favorite movie is a plausible conversational turn, the transition is abrupt, especially following the previous misunderstanding/non-sequitur. Overall, the relevance is significantly poor due to the potential misunderstanding (\"Amy\" vs \"Curio\"), the lack of response to B's question, and the abrupt topic pivot.\n\n\n\nAnalysing Interactional Fluency:\nThe initial turns are smooth. There is a brief overlap at approximately 0:11 when Speaker A begins to speak as Speaker B finishes their sentence, but it is very short and within acceptable limits (<2s). Speaker A speaks for a sustained period. There is a pause between Speaker A finishing speaking (0:28) and Speaker B starting (0:32), which is approximately 4 seconds. This pause is within the acceptable limit (<5s). The turn-taking sequence itself does not show prolonged pauses or overlaps based on the defined criteria, although the *flow* of the conversation is hindered by the relevance issues. Based strictly on the objective measures of pause duration and overlap duration, the fluency is acceptable.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2963.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2963",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates good response relevance. Speaker A initiates topics (Harry Potter, music), Speaker B responds appropriately (not much music, but liked the Lion King musical), and the conversation naturally evolves to related themes like Disney characters and musical instruments. The participants build on each other's points, asking follow-up questions that maintain the flow of the discussion. There is a slight ambiguity regarding the character name \"Ed\" mentioned by both speakers in the context of Lion King characters, especially since Speaker A describes them as not a major character but liking their arc (which fits Scar better than Ed the hyena), but the conversation remains relevant to the topic of Lion King characters. Overall, the responses are logical and connected.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency starts well with smooth turn-taking and no noticeable long pauses or significant overlaps between turns for the initial part of the dialogue. However, there is a very long pause/interruption in Speaker A's turn between 0:57 and 1:07 (approximately 10 seconds) before Speaker A resumes their sentence. This significantly exceeds the allowed pause duration (over 5 seconds) and represents a major disruption to the flow of the interaction as presented in the audio.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 3,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--463.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--463",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "0m0s to 0m5s: A: Hello, how are you? B: I am good. I am reading Plato's Republic. It's really interesting.\n0m6s to 0m9s: A: I really like Plato. Have you read other Greek texts?\n0m10s to 0m13s: B: I read the Iliad in high school. It was really interesting.\n0m14s to 0m18s: A: So you have read a lot of classic texts. Did you take literature classes in high school?\n0m19s to 0m21s: B: No, I had an AP English class in college.\n0m22s to 0m28s: A: Oh, so you already have college level classes in philosophy and classics. How did you become interested in classic literature?\n0m29s to 0m33s: B: Sorry to cut you off. I just wanted to ask, did you find the AP English class challenging?\n0m34s to 0m41s: A: It was challenging but also rewarding. I wanted to learn how to think critically. You mentioned you took a philosophy class once.\n0m41s to 0m43s: B: Yes, and I thought it was really fun. How about you?\n0m44s to 0m48s: A: I don't know. I am interested in how a text's meaning can change over time.\n0m49s to 0m50s: B: Do you like to read new books?\n0m51s to 0m56s: A: Yes, I just finished reading Cold War by Steve Coll. It's a really fascinating historical read.\n0m57s to 0m58s: B: What's your favorite book?\n0m59s to 1m3s: A: I don't really have a favorite book. I enjoy reading history books most.\n1m4s to 1m6s: B: Have you ever read the Catcher in the Rye?\n1m6s to 1m9s: A: No, but it's on my list. I always hear it's great.\nThe speakers maintain relevance throughout the dialogue. Speaker A initiates with a standard greeting, to which Speaker B provides a direct response and adds context about what they are doing. The conversation naturally progresses from reading materials (Plato, Iliad) to related topics like classic texts, literature classes, and personal interests in these subjects. Speaker B's interruption at 0:29 is a momentary shift in focus from *how* they got interested in classics to a follow-up question about a class mentioned earlier, but it is still relevant to the broader topic of literature/classes and is acknowledged by the speaker (\"Sorry to cut you off\"). Speaker A then addresses the interruption and brings the conversation back to a related area (philosophy class). The discussion transitions smoothly to reading preferences (new books, history books, Catcher in the Rye). All responses are directly related to the preceding turns or logically transition the topic.\n\n\n\nThe interaction demonstrates good fluency overall, with smooth turn-taking for the most part. There are no prolonged pauses exceeding 5 seconds at any point. There are a couple of brief overlaps: Speaker B interrupts Speaker A at 0:29, explicitly acknowledging the interruption, and there's another brief overlap from Speaker B at 0:41. However, neither of these overlaps appear to last for 2 seconds or more. While these brief overlaps mean the fluency isn't perfectly \"consistently\" natural or smooth throughout, they do not constitute the \"significant issues\" (pauses >5s or overlaps >2s) as defined in the criteria. The conversation flows without significant disruption caused by timing issues.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2881.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2881",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are generally relevant and follow a logical flow. The conversation moves from general well-being to baking, then cooking, and finally to social distancing during quarantine. Each speaker responds appropriately to the preceding statement or question, although there are a couple of slight tangents (e.g., mentioning stress relief for baking) and some transitions are a bit abrupt but still understandable within the context of an informal chat. There are no instances of completely irrelevant or nonsensical replies.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency has a significant issue. While most turns are smooth and overlaps are minimal and brief, there is a prolonged pause between speaker A's question about social distancing (at 0:50) and speaker B's response (starting at 1:00). This pause is approximately 10 seconds long, which significantly disrupts the natural flow of the conversation and exceeds the acceptable limit of 5 seconds.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--560.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--560",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "thought\nThe user wants me to evaluate a two-person dialogue based on Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\nI need to listen to the audio and analyze how well the speakers respond to each other and how smoothly they take turns.\n\n**Plan:**\n1. Listen to the audio carefully, paying attention to the content of each turn and the timing/overlaps.\n2. Evaluate Response Relevance: Are the responses logical and directly related to the previous turn? Do they make sense in the context of the conversation about going to Paris?\n3. Evaluate Interactional Fluency: Is the turn-taking smooth? Are there long pauses (>5s) or significant overlaps (>2s)?\n4. Write the analysis for Response Relevance under ``.\n5. Write the analysis for Interactional Fluency under ``.\n6. Assign an overall score (1 or 2) based on the combined evaluation. A score of 2 requires both aspects to be consistently good.\n7. Format the output strictly according to the provided template.\n\n**Audio Analysis:**\n* Speaker A: \"Hey there.\"\n* Speaker B: \"Hey, how are you doing?\" - Relevant response.\n* Speaker A: \"I am doing fine. I am heading off to Paris in a few days, so I've been planning out my itinerary.\" - Relevant response, introduces topic.\n* Speaker B: \"That sounds so exciting. Have you been before?\" - Relevant, asks follow-up question.\n* Speaker A: \"Not yet. I've been to other cities in France, but not Paris.\" - Relevant answer.\n* Speaker B: \"What do you want to do while you are there?\" - Relevant question, continues the topic.\n* Speaker A: \"I've heard that Paris is one of the best places in the world to eat. Minus can't wait.\" (Slight mispronunciation/word choice 'Minus' instead of 'I just' or similar, but the meaning is clear) - Relevant, mentions an activity.\n* Speaker B: \"Haha, I love to eat so I've been there. What else are you interested in?\" - Relevant, shares related experience and asks another follow-up.\n* Speaker A: \"I've heard the Musée d'Orsay is a must-see while in Paris. I am also excited to see the Moulin Rouge, but I'll save that for...\" - Relevant, lists more potential activities.\n* Speaker B: \"Oh the Moulin Rouge! Are you planning to catch a show there? It's quite an experience.\" (Slight overlap at the beginning of B's turn, but not severe) - Relevant, reacts to A's comment and asks a specific question.\n* Speaker A: \"Yes, I am. But I also plan to go shopping on the famous Champs-Champs-Élysées.\" (Slight hesitation/repetition on \"Champs\") - Relevant answer and adds another activity.\n* Speaker B: \"If you want to find something unique, I'd check out the flea markets. There are a lot of great finds. Where else...\" (Dialogue cuts off) - Relevant suggestion.\n\n**Response Relevance Evaluation:**\nThe conversation flows naturally. Each speaker responds directly to the previous turn, asking relevant follow-up questions or providing information related to the topic of the trip to Paris. The responses are logical and consistent within the context. There was one minor awkward phrasing from A (\"Minus can't wait\"), but the intent was clear.\n\n**Interactional Fluency Evaluation:**\nTurn-taking is generally smooth. There are no long pauses (>5s). There is a brief overlap when Speaker B responds to A mentioning the Moulin Rouge, but it's short (less than 2s) and doesn't disrupt the conversation flow significantly. Speaker A has a slight hesitation/repetition when saying \"Champs-Élysées\", but this is a natural part of speech and not a fluency issue in terms of turn-taking or major pauses.\n\n**Overall Score:**\nBoth Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency are good. The dialogue is easy to follow and feels natural. There are no significant issues in either area.\n\nConfidence Score: 5/5 - I'm confident in this evaluation based on the criteria.\nStrategizing complete. I will now generate the response following the template.\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker B's questions and comments directly follow from Speaker A's statements about going to Paris and planning the trip. Speaker A provides clear answers to B's questions and elaborates on their plans. The conversation flows logically, moving from the initial announcement of the trip to specific planned activities and suggestions. There is a minor awkward phrasing from Speaker A (\"Minus can't wait\"), but the meaning is easily understood in context. Overall, the responses are accurate and contribute meaningfully to the conversation.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. Speakers take turns appropriately with minimal pauses. There is one brief overlap (<2s) when Speaker B reacts to the mention of the Moulin Rouge, which is natural in spontaneous conversation and does not hinder understanding or flow. Speaker A has a slight hesitation when naming the Champs-Élysées, but this is a minor speech disfluency and not an issue of turn-taking or prolonged pauses. The conversation proceeds smoothly without unnatural delays.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2931.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2931",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Speaker A initiates the conversation about 50 being the new 30, and Speaker B provides a direct and relevant response explaining the reasons (living longer, healthier, better self-care). Speaker A's follow-up question about the role of medicine versus lifestyle changes is also directly addressed by Speaker B, who explains it's a combination and elaborates on both aspects, including the shift in mindset towards staying active. Speaker A's final comment directly ties into Speaker B's point about staying active. The conversation flows logically and each turn builds appropriately on the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is hindered by a significant overlap. While there are no prolonged pauses, there is a clear overlap between Speaker A's turn starting around 00:10.2 and Speaker B's preceding turn ending around 00:12.8. This overlap is approximately 2.6 seconds long, exceeding the 2-second threshold for harmful overlap mentioned in the instructions. This makes the turn-taking less smooth and unnatural at that point in the dialogue.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2123.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2123",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue start off well, with clear questions and relevant answers about the language class. However, the conversation's relevance significantly breaks down when Speaker A mentions starting grad school (0:16). Speaker B responds appropriately by asking about specialization (0:19). The issue arises when Speaker A interjects (0:27) asking Speaker B *why* they decided to go to grad school, which is illogical as Speaker A was the one who just mentioned grad school. Speaker B attempts to clarify (0:31) that *they* (Speaker B) want to advance their career in business administration, but Speaker A then *again* clarifies (0:38) that *they* (Speaker A) want to apply for grad schools. This indicates a persistent misunderstanding or lack of attention to who is talking about their own plans versus asking about the other's plans. This back-and-forth of misunderstanding makes the responses lack logical consistency for a significant portion of the dialogue. The conversation regains relevance afterwards with questions about the field and winter plans, but the core confusion about grad school significantly impacts the overall response relevance.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. The turn-taking is smooth, and speakers respond relatively quickly to each other. There are brief, natural overlaps (e.g., around 0:07-0:08 and 0:27-0:28), but these are short and do not impede the flow of conversation. There are no prolonged pauses exceeding 5 seconds or sustained overlaps of 2 seconds or more. The pacing and timing feel natural for an informal dialogue.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2081.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2081",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe response relevance is poor due to Speaker A's abrupt topic shift. The initial conversation is about coffee and curiosity (0:00-0:09). Speaker B asks \"Why?\" to understand A's curiosity. Instead of explaining the connection to coffee or curiosity, Speaker A suddenly asks about eating plain oatmeal with almond milk (0:10-0:14). This transition is completely illogical and irrelevant to the preceding turns. Speaker B manages to latch onto the new topic and maintain relevance from that point (0:15 onwards), but Speaker A's initial shift makes the overall relevance of the interaction significantly flawed.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth throughout the dialogue. There are no noticeable pauses longer than 5 seconds. There is a very brief, natural overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B around 0:15-0:18, but it is well under the 2-second threshold and does not disrupt the flow of the conversation. The speakers respond promptly to each other, contributing to a natural rhythm.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--669.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--669",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates good response relevance for most of the conversation. Speaker A asks about a favorite celebrity, Speaker B responds, Speaker A asks for more detail, Speaker B provides it and asks a related question, Speaker A responds. They continue to discuss the celebrity, adding points about his personality, performances, and fan interaction. The only slight dip in relevance occurs when Speaker A asks a specific question about improvisation helping connect with the audience (0:47-0:52), and Speaker B responds with \"Yeah\" followed by \"What do you like about him?\" (0:53-0:56), seeming to shift the topic back to a general preference rather than addressing the specific point about improvisation and audience connection. This leads to Speaker A answering the \"What do you like\" question (0:56-0:59) instead of getting an answer to her previous question. However, this is a minor deviation in an otherwise relevant exchange.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth, with speakers responding promptly to each other. There are no noticeable prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds) between turns. There are a couple of very brief overlaps (e.g., around 0:07 and 0:22), but these are minimal and sound natural, not disruptive, and are well under the 2-second threshold. The rhythm and flow of the conversation feel natural and unforced.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--424.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--424",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe speakers generally maintain relevance, staying focused on the topic of Nietzsche's ideas. Speaker A's initial question is direct. Speaker B responds broadly but positively. Speaker A then attempts to clarify, asking about a specific concept (\"Übermensch\"), which is relevant. Speaker B turns the question back, which is a relevant conversational tactic but doesn't directly answer. Speaker A then clarifies their original intent more broadly. Speaker B follows up with a relevant question about the practicality/radicalism of the ideas. However, Speaker A's subsequent interpretation (\"So you think Nietzsche's philosophy has something to offer?\") feels like a step back, summarizing B's initial stance rather than engaging with the \"radicalism\" point. Speaker B's final response also seems to reiterate his initial point rather than engaging with A's latest question or previous clarification fully. While the conversation stays on topic, the direct engagement with the *most recent* point from the other speaker is occasionally weak, leading to a slight lack of logical progression in the latter half. However, these are minor deviations, not significant issues that disrupt the flow or understanding of the conversation.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. Turn-taking is responsive with minimal delay. There is a brief overlap when Speaker A clarifies at 0:13, but this feels natural and not disruptive, well under the 2-second threshold for being harmful. There are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds). The rhythm of the conversation feels natural for a discussion.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--637.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--637",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant to the conversation flow. Speaker A initiates a topic about a specific film, and Speaker B responds directly, asking for an opinion. Speaker A provides the opinion, and Speaker B asks a related follow-up question about an aspect of the film (De Niro's approach), albeit slightly ambiguous in its phrasing (\"new age approach\"). Speaker A interprets this as acting style and discusses it, which is a relevant interpretation within the context of discussing an actor in a film. Speaker B then uses this point to broaden the discussion to acting trends in general, which is a logical progression in a conversation about actors and films. Speaker A responds relevantly to this new topic. Although Speaker B asks about De Niro's \"new age approach\" without having seen the film, and Speaker A interprets it slightly differently than perhaps intended (acting style vs. de-aging technology), the responses remain within the realm of discussing the film and acting, maintaining logical consistency and relevance throughout the interaction segment.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no significant pauses (over 5 seconds) between turns. Turn-taking is smooth and responsive throughout the dialogue segment. There appear to be only very brief, acceptable overlaps, like the one around the 0:18 mark, which are natural in conversation and do not disrupt understanding or flow. The speakers transition between turns without hesitation, indicating a natural and fluent rhythm.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--480.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--480",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are highly relevant throughout the dialogue. Speaker A initiates by talking about breakfast options and Greek yogurt. Speaker B directly responds to whether they have tried it. Speaker A then elaborates on ways to eat yogurt and asks about adding honey or nuts, to which Speaker B responds directly, confirming honey is good and they haven't tried nuts. Although Speaker B then introduces waffles, Speaker A acknowledges this and smoothly connects it back to the previous topic by suggesting using yogurt and fruit as a topping for waffles. The conversation flows logically, building upon previous turns and staying focused on food/breakfast topics.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is smooth with no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds). There is one brief overlap around the 0:15 mark where Speaker B starts speaking just before Speaker A finishes their sentence, but this overlap is very short (less than a second) and sounds natural, not disruptive. There are no overlaps that are 2 seconds or more.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2271.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2271",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A asks open-ended questions about liking Nietzsche and his relationship with other philosophers. Speaker B provides detailed, relevant answers, explaining Nietzsche's philosophy, influences, and comparing him to Heidegger. Speaker A responds by acknowledging points, adding their own interpretation, and asking follow-up questions that build logically on the conversation. The conversation stays focused on the topic of Nietzsche and related philosophical concepts throughout. There are no instances of off-topic remarks or misunderstandings that disrupt the flow based on relevance.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is impacted by prolonged overlaps. While there are no pauses exceeding the 5-second threshold, the dialogue contains instances of overlapping speech that appear to be 2 seconds or longer according to the transcript timing. Notably, around the 00:20-00:24 mark, Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing a sentence, resulting in a significant overlap. Another noticeable overlap occurs around 00:50-00:51 where Speaker A overlaps with Speaker B concluding a point. According to the scoring criteria, overlaps of 2 seconds or more are considered harmful to interactional fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 3,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--448.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--448",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are generally relevant to the ongoing conversation. Speaker A initiates by asking for show recommendations, and Speaker B responds with a relevant suggestion. They discuss busy schedules in relation to watching shows, and Speaker A's question about juggling schedules, while slightly interrupting, is relevant to the topic of busy schedules just raised by Speaker B. There is an abrupt topic shift initiated by Speaker A asking about school plans, which doesn't flow logically from the previous discussion about shows and schedules. However, once the topic of school is introduced, the subsequent responses from both speakers are relevant to the school topic, discussing specific universities and campus activities. While the transition between topics isn't smooth, the individual responses within the established topics are relevant and consistent.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. Turn-taking is relatively smooth with minimal pauses between speakers. There are no prolonged pauses exceeding 5 seconds. There is a brief overlap around the 0:21 mark where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is finishing a sentence, but this overlap is short and does not last for 2 seconds or more, making it acceptable according to the criteria. Overall, the conversation flows naturally without significant disruptions in timing or overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--510.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--510",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "1분 미만 짧은 오디오에 대한 평가 지침은 따로 없지만, 지침에 따라 Response Relevance와 Interactional Fluency를 분석하고 overall score를 부여합니다.\n\n\nThe responses are generally relevant and follow the conversation thread about hobbies and activities. Speaker A asks about what B has been doing, B talks about climbing and asks A about their experience and gym attendance. A confirms they haven't tried climbing but finds it interesting, asks if B goes to the gym, and then shares their own hobby (biking). B acknowledges A's hobby. The last turn from A has a slight logical inconsistency, starting with \"Speaking of bike routes...\" and then immediately asking about \"climbing gyms.\" While both topics were mentioned previously, referencing one topic (bike routes) while immediately pivoting to another (climbing gyms) feels a little abrupt and less cohesive than the previous turns. However, the core content of the question (asking for recommendations) is relevant to the broader theme of activities discussed. Overall, the relevance is mostly appropriate despite this minor awkward transition at the end.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. There are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds). There are a couple of instances of brief overlap where speaker A starts speaking before speaker B has finished (around 0:12-0:13 and 0:21-0:22). These overlaps appear to be natural interruptions in a conversation rather than significant disruptions, and neither overlap lasts for 2 seconds or more. The turn-taking is otherwise smooth.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--475.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--475",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses throughout the dialogue are consistently relevant and maintain a logical flow. Speaker A initiates the conversation by asking about hobbies. Speaker B responds directly. Speaker A shares their hobby (tennis), and Speaker B expresses interest. The topic then shifts to powerlifting, which is related to exercise, introduced by Speaker A. Speaker B's response about powerlifting is relevant, mentioning what a friend said. Speaker A's interruption at 0:20 is a relevant follow-up question seeking clarification on the benefits mentioned. Speaker B provides a relevant answer. Speaker A's subsequent questions about learning about powerlifting and specific forms (squats/deadlifts) are direct follow-ups to Speaker B's interest. Speaker B answers these specifically and then brings the conversation back to equipment, which is also relevant to the topic. Speaker A concludes by stating their plan to learn about equipment. The conversation progresses logically from general hobbies to specific details about powerlifting.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. Turn-taking is generally smooth and responsive. There are no prolonged pauses exceeding 5 seconds. There are two instances of brief overlap where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B (at 0:20 and 0:41). In both cases, Speaker A starts speaking just as Speaker B is finishing their turn or slightly before, in order to ask a relevant follow-up question. These overlaps are very short, well under the 2-second threshold defined as harmful. They feel more like eager participation than disruptive overlapping or lengthy pauses. Overall, the conversation maintains a natural rhythm without significant disruptions to the flow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2014.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2014",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A initiates the conversation about remodeling their kitchen, and Speaker B immediately asks for more details, showing engagement. Speaker A provides these details, and Speaker B responds by raising relevant practical considerations like time commitment and structural limitations, which are common and logical points in a discussion about remodeling. Speaker A acknowledges these points and introduces another aspect of their plan (making the kitchen bigger), to which Speaker B responds positively and asks another relevant question about feasibility. The conversation flows naturally, with speakers building upon each other's ideas and concerns, maintaining a clear focus on the topic throughout.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is significantly impacted by a long pause or gap in the audio between approximately 0:11 and 0:20, following a brief overlap where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. This gap is around 9 seconds, which is well over the 5-second limit for acceptable pauses. While turn-taking is otherwise managed relatively smoothly before and after this gap, this prolonged silence constitutes a significant issue in interactional fluency according to the evaluation criteria.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--541.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--541",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are consistently relevant and logical throughout the dialogue. Speaker A initiates with a general question, Speaker B answers and reciprocates, and the conversation naturally progresses to discussing clothes shopping, seeking suggestions, specifying preferences (casual outfits), and asking for store recommendations. Speaker B provides a relevant suggestion (local boutiques) and introduces the idea of online shopping. Speaker A responds directly to this, acknowledging its convenience but raising relevant concerns about fit and quality, leading to a request for tips. Each turn builds upon the previous one, demonstrating high relevance and logical consistency.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth and natural, with appropriate pacing between speakers. There are no instances of prolonged pauses exceeding 5 seconds or significant overlaps lasting 2 seconds or more. The conversational flow is uninterrupted and feels natural, contributing to a highly fluent interaction.\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2191.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2191",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are generally relevant throughout the dialogue. Speaker A introduces the idea of going to Jamaica, Speaker B responds appropriately and asks a follow-up question. Speaker A answers and shifts to talking about going next year. Speaker B transitions to asking about other trips planned, and Speaker A introduces a trip to Peru. Speaker B asks for details about the Peru trip, and Speaker A responds they don't know yet. After a long pause, Speaker A re-introduces the Jamaica topic, explaining why they are waiting until next year. Speaker B then responds to this comment about Jamaica. Although there is a shift in topic after the long pause, each individual response is relevant to the topic being discussed at that point in the conversation. There are no apparent misunderstandings or inaccurate responses.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is significantly impacted by a long pause. From approximately 0:19 to 0:29, there is a pause of about 10 seconds after Speaker A says \"I don't know yet\". This exceeds the 5-second threshold for acceptable pauses and disrupts the flow of the conversation. There are no prolonged overlaps observed. The long pause is a significant issue regarding interactional fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--413.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--413",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A introduces a concept (the point of gods given their power vs human weakness). Speaker B directly addresses this by proposing an interpretation (\"a game of chance\") and elaborates on the implications for the gods themselves. Speaker A then seeks clarification, which Speaker B provides and expands upon, drawing parallels to rebellion. Speaker A acknowledges understanding and adds a logical extension to the point. Speaker B agrees and applies the concept to a real-world situation. Speaker A picks up on this shift and asks for clarification, which Speaker B readily provides. The conversation flows logically from one point to the next, with each speaker's turn building upon or directly responding to the previous one. There are no irrelevant responses or significant misunderstandings.\n\n\n\nBased on the provided timestamps and transcript, the interaction exhibits excellent fluency. Turns are taken promptly, with minimal gaps between speakers. There are brief overlaps (e.g., around 0:10 and 0:58), but they appear to be natural instances of conversational anticipation rather than prolonged, disruptive overlaps. There are no pauses exceeding 5 seconds. The pacing is dynamic and conversational, indicating active engagement from both speakers.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2752.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2752",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are generally relevant to the topic of Trent Reznor. Speaker A introduces the topic. Speaker B responds with a related query about his influence on pop music. Speaker A acknowledges the question and provides their knowledge, adding a point about his innovation. Speaker B then shifts the topic slightly to his influence on film scores versus music genres. Speaker A addresses this point but also brings the conversation back to his musical talent. While the topic shifts initiated by Speaker B are a bit abrupt (from concert to pop music influence, then to film score influence), the content of each turn is relevant to the subject being discussed (Trent Reznor and his work). There are no major logical inconsistencies or inaccurate statements based on the dialogue itself.\n\n\n\nThe interaction has a significant issue with fluency due to a prolonged pause. There is a pause lasting approximately 9 seconds between Speaker A's turn ending around 0:18 and Speaker B's next turn starting around 0:27. This is well over the 5-second threshold mentioned in the criteria and severely disrupts the flow of the conversation. There is a brief overlap where Speaker B says \"Sorry to jump in\" but this is not a prolonged overlap (less than 2 seconds). However, the long pause is a major fluency issue.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2906.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2906",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe response relevance is generally good. Speaker A asks for recommendations for wine tasting classes. Speaker B provides a recommendation (Cornell). Speaker A then interrupts, acknowledging the recommendation but shifting the focus slightly to ask about the current availability of that specific class based on potential travel. Speaker B's final response directly addresses the availability question, providing relevant context (time passed since taking the class) and a practical suggestion (call to check). Despite the interruption, the conversation stays on the topic of the recommended class and its availability, demonstrating good relevance.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency has significant issues. While turn-taking is mostly smooth initially, Speaker A interrupts Speaker B mid-sentence around the 0:10 mark. Crucially, after this interruption, there is a prolonged silence of approximately 10 seconds (from roughly 0:11 to 0:21) before Speaker A finishes their thought and asks the follow-up question. This long pause significantly disrupts the flow of the conversation and falls outside the acceptable limit of avoiding pauses over 5 seconds. The interruption itself also detracts from smooth turn-taking.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2872.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2872",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe conversation starts with Speaker A asking about the latest iPhone, and Speaker B responds relevantly about its features. Speaker A then asks about Speaker B's current phone, which is a slight but acceptable shift in topic within the broader context of discussing phones. Speaker B answers this question relevantly but then immediately introduces a question about the iPhone 12. This sudden pivot to a specific, likely older model (iPhone 12) from discussing the \"latest\" iPhone feels a bit abrupt and less logically consistent than a smoother progression might be. However, the responses *within* the specific topics raised are relevant (e.g., A responding about the iPhone 12 camera after B asks about it). While not perfectly flowing, the individual responses aren't completely irrelevant or inaccurate. There are no significant issues with the accuracy or logical consistency *of the statements themselves*, just the flow between topics is a little disjointed at one point.\n\n\n\nThe interaction includes a brief overlap at 0:08 when Speaker A interrupts, which is acknowledged by A (\"Sorry to interrupt\") and is short, well within the acceptable limit. There is a 3-second pause between 0:11 and 0:14, which is acceptable. However, there is a prolonged pause of approximately 10 seconds between 0:25 and 0:35. This significantly exceeds the acceptable pause duration of 5 seconds and disrupts the smoothness of the conversation. There is also a very brief overlap at 0:24-0:25 when B interjects \"Oh, that's...\", which is brief and acceptable. The long 10-second pause constitutes a significant issue in interactional fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--559.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--559",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "473) Speaker A: Are you a fan of Game of Thrones? (0:00) I heard the last season was pretty dramatic. (0:02)\nSpeaker B: I never watched it. (0:05) I have no interest in that type of show. (0:07)\nSpeaker A: What do you like to watch? (0:09)\nSpeaker B: I like stuff with more of an adventure focus. (0:11) I saw a prayer for a new movie called A Drift (0:14) that looks really intense. (0:16)\nSpeaker A: Oh, A Drift. (0:16) I heard about that one. (0:17) Isn't it based on a true story? (0:19) I am always looking for new movies to watch, (0:21) too. (0:23) Let me know how the movie is when you get a chance. (0:24)\nSpeaker B: No problem. (0:27) Thanks again. (0:28)\nThe responses are relevant to the conversation flow. Speaker A asks about a show, Speaker B responds with lack of interest and their preference. Speaker A follows up on B's preference, and Speaker B introduces a movie they are interested in. Speaker A recognizes the movie and engages with relevant questions and statements about it, and makes a request related to the movie. Speaker B acknowledges the request. The dialogue maintains logical consistency throughout.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds) between turns. There is a slight overlap at the beginning of Speaker A's fifth turn (around 0:16), but it is very brief and does not impede the conversation or sound unnatural. The turn-taking is smooth overall.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--599.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--599",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nSpeaker B's responses are consistently relevant to Speaker A's questions and prompts. When asked how to go to New York, Speaker B suggests a mode of transport and gives a reason. When asked what New York is like, Speaker B provides a description. When asked for recommendations, Speaker B offers specific places and activities. Speaker B also directly addresses Speaker A's question about safety in Central Park. The information provided throughout is logically consistent within the context of discussing a trip to New York.\n\n\n\nThe interaction flows smoothly with appropriate turn-taking. There are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds) or significant overlaps (2 seconds or more) that disrupt the conversation. Speaker A briefly overlaps Speaker B around 0:24-0:25, but this is a short interruption and is handled naturally as part of the dialogue exchange. The timing of responses feels natural and conversational.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--691.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--691",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant to the topic being discussed, which is poetry and specific poets (Anne Sexton and T.S. Eliot). Speaker B responds directly to Speaker A's initial question about Anne Sexton and offers their opinion, then introduces a different poet, T.S. Eliot. Speaker A follows up by expressing interest and asking for recommendations. Although Speaker B briefly interrupts to suggest \"The Waste Land,\" this recommendation is still highly relevant to the topic of T.S. Eliot's work. Speaker A then steers the conversation back to the original question about favorite poems, which Speaker B answers. The subsequent exchange about the themes in \"The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock\" is a direct and relevant continuation of discussing that specific poem. The conversation maintains logical consistency throughout.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. There are no noticeable pauses that exceed the 5-second limit. There is a brief interruption by Speaker B at around 0:15, but it is short and Speaker A quickly regains their turn, so it doesn't constitute a prolonged overlap that would significantly disrupt the flow. The turn-taking is otherwise smooth, allowing the conversation to progress naturally.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--484.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--484",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "thought\nThe user wants me to evaluate a two-person dialogue based on Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency, and then provide a single overall score.\n\nI need to listen to the provided audio and analyze the conversation between speakers A and B.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n- Speaker A starts by mentioning classic rock (Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin).\n- Speaker B responds by agreeing and adding a detail about Roger Waters.\n- Speaker A asks for other band suggestions.\n- Speaker B suggests The Rolling Stones.\n- Speaker A introduces My Chemical Romance (which isn't classic rock).\n- Speaker B responds negatively to My Chemical Romance, describing it as \"boring\".\n- Speaker A asks if Speaker B likes The Who.\n- Speaker B responds about The Beatles instead, saying they are \"okay\" but prefers Bob Dylan.\n- Speaker A responds positively to The Beatles and mentions listening to them while writing songs.\n\nCritique on Relevance:\n- The initial exchange about classic rock is relevant.\n- Speaker B's suggestion of The Rolling Stones is relevant to the topic of rock bands.\n- Speaker A's mention of My Chemical Romance is a bit off-topic from \"classic rock\" but is a response to a question about other bands they *might* enjoy. Speaker B's response, while negative, is relevant to A's statement.\n- Speaker A asks about The Who, which is classic rock. Speaker B responds about The Beatles and Bob Dylan. While related genres, it's not a direct answer to the question about The Who. However, it does keep the conversation flowing about music and related artists.\n- The final exchange about The Beatles is relevant as B brought them up.\n\nOverall, the responses are mostly relevant, although there are moments where the topic shifts slightly (My Chemical Romance, not directly answering about The Who). The responses are logically consistent within the context of discussing music preferences. The slightly off-topic moments don't break the conversation flow significantly.\n\n**Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\n- Listen for significant pauses (over 5s).\n- Listen for significant overlaps (over 2s).\n- Note the general smoothness of turn-taking.\n\nCritique on Fluency:\n- Speaker A: \"I've been listening to a lot of classic rock lately. I really love Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin.\" (Ends at ~0:05)\n- Speaker B: \"Led Zeppelin is pretty great, but I really like Pink Floyd too. I think it's super cool that Roger Waters still tours with the band.\" (Starts ~0:06, ends ~0:13) - Smooth turn-taking, no significant pause or overlap.\n- Speaker A: \"Do you know of any other bands I might enjoy that?\" (Starts ~0:14, ends ~0:16)\n- Speaker B: \"Sorry to interrupt, but have you ever listened to the Rolling Stones? They have a lot of great tracks that you might enjoy.\" (Starts ~0:16, ends ~0:22) - There is a slight overlap right at the beginning where B says \"Sorry to interrupt\" as A is finishing, but it's very brief (less than 1s) and speaker B quickly takes the floor. Acceptable.\n- Speaker A: \"Well, my favorite band is My Chemical Romance.\" (Starts ~0:22, ends ~0:25)\n- Speaker B: \"I'm sorry, but I really don't like their music. I don't really know how to describe it, but I find it extremely boring.\" (Starts ~0:26, ends ~0:31) - Smooth turn-taking.\n- Speaker A: \"Oh, that's okay. Do you like the Who? I...\" (Starts ~0:32, ends ~0:36)\n- Speaker B: \"The Beatles I mean, they're okay, but I really prefer Bob Dylan.\" (Starts ~0:36, ends ~0:39) - There is a very brief overlap where B starts speaking just as A says \"I...\". Speaker B then says \"The Beatles I mean\". This seems like B jumped in quickly, possibly misunderstanding or predicting A's question, then corrected themselves slightly (\"The Beatles I mean\"). The overlap is very short (less than 0.5s). Acceptable.\n- Speaker A: \"Okay. Yeah, he's really good. I listen to a lot of the Beatles when I am writing songs.\" (Starts ~0:40, ends ~0:46) - Smooth turn-taking.\n\nNo long pauses (over 5s) observed. Overlaps were very brief and did not significantly disrupt the conversation flow. The turn-taking feels mostly natural for an informal conversation.\n\n**Overall Score:**\nBoth Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency are generally appropriate and natural. Relevance is good overall, despite minor shifts. Fluency is good, with only brief, acceptable overlaps. This aligns with the description for \"Excellent\".\n\nConfidence Score: 5/5 - I am confident in this assessment based on the criteria and the audio.\nStrategizing complete. I will now generate the output in the specified format.\nThe responses are generally relevant to the conversation about music and bands. Speaker A introduces classic rock, Speaker B responds appropriately and suggests another band. When Speaker A brings up a different genre (My Chemical Romance), Speaker B gives a clear opinion, which is relevant to the topic of musical preference. Speaker A then asks about another classic rock band (The Who), and Speaker B responds by discussing The Beatles and Bob Dylan. While not a direct answer about The Who, it keeps the conversation within the realm of discussing artists and preferences, making it relevant to the broader topic. There are no logical inconsistencies.\n\n\n\nThe turn-taking is smooth with no significant pauses greater than 5 seconds. There are a couple of brief overlaps (less than 1 second), which are natural in conversational speech and do not disrupt the flow or make either speaker inaudible. For example, Speaker B slightly overlaps Speaker A when saying \"Sorry to interrupt,\" and there is a very brief overlap before Speaker B mentions \"The Beatles I mean\". These minor overlaps are acceptable and contribute to the natural feel of the dialogue.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2204.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2204",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses throughout the dialogue are relevant to the ongoing conversation about cooking. Speaker A initiates the topic, Speaker B responds with their perspective, Speaker A asks a clarifying question, Speaker B answers and asks a follow-up, Speaker A explains their motivation and is about to elaborate, Speaker B acknowledges, and then later Speaker B asks a question about how Speaker A plans to learn, which Speaker A answers. There are no irrelevant turns or logical inconsistencies.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency has a significant issue. There is a prolonged pause between 0:29 and 0:38, lasting approximately 9 seconds, which is well over the acceptable 5-second limit. While there are brief overlaps or interruptions (e.g., around 0:06 and 0:28), they are short and do not meet the 2-second threshold for significant harm. The primary fluency problem is the long silence.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2929.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2929",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are relevant and follow the flow of the conversation. Speaker A initiates by talking about joining choir, Speaker B responds with enthusiasm and asks a question. Speaker A answers the question and turns it back to B. Speaker B shares their past experience. Speaker A responds appropriately to B's point about not having albums. After a long pause, Speaker A introduces a related thought about keeping music, and Speaker B responds by talking about the benefits of singing. There are no apparent issues with accuracy or logical consistency in the responses themselves.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency has significant issues. While there are no prolonged overlaps, there is a very long pause between 0:20 and 0:29 (approximately 9 seconds). This exceeds the 5-second threshold and disrupts the natural flow of the conversation, indicating a significant issue with smooth turn-taking or continuity.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2854.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2854",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe speakers demonstrate good response relevance. Speaker A initiates the conversation about the EU and diversity. Speaker B responds directly to this, agreeing and expanding on the idea of diversity and wishing for similar outcomes. Speaker A then asks a relevant follow-up question about the achievability of such respect for diversity in their current political climate, which directly relates to Speaker B's previous point. Speaker B addresses this question about the challenge and suggests fostering dialogue. Speaker A then pivots by linking back to Speaker B's mention of \"bringing nations together\" and asks about a similar union in North America, extending the topic logically. The dialogue progresses naturally with speakers building on each other's contributions.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency has a significant issue. While turn-taking is mostly smooth with only very brief, non-problematic overlaps (at 0:24-0:25 and 0:44-0:45), there is a prolonged pause between Speaker A's utterance ending at approximately 0:45 and Speaker A starting again at approximately 0:54. This pause is over 9 seconds, which significantly exceeds the 5-second threshold for acceptable pauses and disrupts the natural flow of the conversation.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2914.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2914",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Speaker B directly answers Speaker A's initial question about finding a phone, mentioning specific models and considerations. Speaker A's subsequent questions and reactions are relevant follow-ups to B's statements about the Galaxy S20 and comparison to the iPhone. Speaker B's explanation for considering an iPhone is also relevant, and Speaker A's final question builds directly on this. The conversation flows logically and coherently, with each turn contributing meaningfully to the topic initiated. There are no apparent inaccuracies or logical inconsistencies in the content of the responses.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency has an issue with overlapping speech. While the turn-taking is generally smooth with minimal pauses, there is a noticeable overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B from approximately 0:07 to 0:10. Speaker A begins speaking (\"Wait, did you say...\") while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence (\"...before making a final decision.\"). This overlap lasts for around 3 seconds, which exceeds the acceptable brief overlap and falls into the category of prolonged overlap (over 2s), impacting the smoothness of the interaction. There are no prolonged pauses over 5 seconds observed.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--658.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--658",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A introduces the topic of eating almonds before a run and asks for a brand recommendation. Speaker B responds by acknowledging they don't know a brand but asks a relevant clarifying question about why A is considering almonds (protein or other reasons), which is highly relevant to the context of eating them before exercise. Speaker A directly answers this, and then asks Speaker B about their experience with nuts in their exercise regimen, keeping the topic relevant to exercise and nuts. Speaker B responds directly to this. Speaker A then shifts slightly to ask about nuts in Japan, a new but related topic (Speaker B previously mentioned something about Japan in a hypothetical sense, though not in this audio, the prompt implies dual-channel audio from a possibly longer interaction or implies a context). Speaker B directly answers this question. Speaker A then broadens the topic back to different kinds of nuts, which relates to B's comment about not seeing many almonds. Finally, Speaker B and A respond directly to each other regarding the suggestion to try different nuts. All turns are logically connected and relevant to the ongoing conversation thread.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth with minimal hesitation. There is one brief overlap at 0:36, where Speaker A starts speaking just as Speaker B finishes, but this is very short and natural for a conversation (<2 seconds). There are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds) at any point, indicating a natural and continuous flow of dialogue between the speakers.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2065.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2065",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are generally relevant to the questions asked. Speaker A asks about dog preferences, and Speaker B responds with their preference for cats but conditions for having a dog, providing a logical explanation for wanting to keep a dog outside (messiness, space). Speaker A then asks about Speaker B's pet's name (which is a slight, but acceptable, shift in topic initiated by B), introduces Roger, and describes him when asked. Speaker B's question about Roger's breed (regular dog or mutt) interrupts Speaker A's description but is a follow-up question about the pet. Speaker A's final response about Roger being a purebred is directly relevant to the question. While the flow isn't always perfectly smooth due to the topic change and interruption, the individual responses themselves are accurate and logically consistent within the context of the conversation. There are no significant issues with response relevance itself.\n\n\n\nThere are significant issues with interactional fluency in this dialogue.\n- At 0:45, Speaker B overlaps with Speaker A for more than 2 seconds while asking about the dog's breed.\n- Following this overlap, there is a prolonged pause of approximately 9 seconds (from 0:46 to 0:55), which is well over the 5-second limit for acceptable pauses. This pause, combined with the audio of Speaker B cutting off and then restarting the same question, indicates a breakdown in smooth turn-taking or potentially an audio issue impacting the interaction flow.\nThese prolonged pauses and overlaps constitute significant issues in interactional fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2040.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2040",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are generally relevant and follow a logical flow. The speakers respond directly to each other's questions and comments, building upon the conversation points. For example, Speaker A asks how things are going, B responds and asks back, A shares news about an exam, B asks about the result, A provides it, B comments on it, A seeks clarification and explains their effort, and then B introduces a new, related topic (grad school) which A responds to. The brief interruption by Speaker A to clarify a point is handled politely and is relevant to the previous turn. The transition to discussing grad school is a natural, albeit slightly abrupt, shift in topic within a casual conversation context. All responses are accurate based on the stated facts within the dialogue.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is mostly good, with clear turn-taking and minimal brief overlaps or pauses. However, there is one significant pause lasting approximately 5-6 seconds between Speaker A finishing their turn (around 0:37) and Speaker B initiating the next turn (around 0:48) by asking about grad school. According to the criteria, pauses over 5 seconds are considered harmful. There is also a shorter pause around 0:22 before Speaker B responds to Speaker A's clarification question, which is around 3-4 seconds and acceptable. The brief overlap where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B is acknowledged by A and is acceptable. The prolonged pause is the primary issue affecting fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--575.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--575",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are generally relevant to the topic of shopping for clothes. Speaker A asks about favorite brands, and Speaker B provides some. Speaker A then asks for more details (\"What else do you look for?\"). Speaker B pivots slightly to suggest checking online stores, which is related to shopping but doesn't directly answer the \"what else\" question. Speaker A acknowledges this idea but then lists more brands they like before asking about stores Speaker B shops at. Speaker B responds with a store name. While there are slight shifts in the specific focus (brands -> online -> brands -> stores), the conversation stays within the domain of clothes shopping and the responses build upon previous turns in a logical, if not always direct, manner. There are no significant issues with accuracy or logical consistency within the topic.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are no pauses that exceed the 5-second limit. There is a brief overlap when Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is finishing their question around the 0:10 mark, but this overlap is well under the 2-second limit and sounds natural for conversational speech. Turn-taking is otherwise smooth with acceptable small pauses between turns.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2389.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2389",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "thought\nThe user wants me to evaluate a two-person dialogue based on Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\nI need to listen to the audio provided.\nThen, I will analyze the conversation:\n1. **Response Relevance**: Do the speakers respond appropriately to each other's statements and questions? Is the content accurate and logically consistent within the conversation flow?\n2. **Interactional Fluency**: Is the turn-taking smooth? Are there long pauses (over 5s)? Are there significant overlaps (over 2s)? Brief pauses and short overlaps are acceptable.\n\nAfter the analysis, I will provide:\n- ``: Analysis and reasons for the score related to response relevance.\n- ``: Analysis and reasons for the score related to interactional fluency.\n- ``: A single score (1 or 2) based on the combined evaluation.\n\n**Audio Analysis Plan:**\n- Listen to speaker A's first turn (0:00 - 0:04).\n- Listen to speaker B's response (0:04 - 0:07). Check relevance and fluency.\n- Listen to speaker A's next turn (0:07 - 0:15). Check relevance and fluency.\n- Listen to speaker B's response (0:15 - 0:20). Check relevance and fluency. Note the correction about bees being mammals.\n- Listen to speaker A's next turn (0:22 - 0:30). Check relevance and fluency. Note the acknowledgment of the correction and continuation of the topic.\n- Listen to speaker B's response (0:31 - 0:35). Check relevance and fluency.\n- Listen to speaker A's next turn (0:36 - 0:45). Check relevance and fluency. Note the mention of egg-laying mammals.\n- Listen to speaker B's response (0:45 - 0:59). Check relevance and fluency. Note the mention of platypus. There seems to be an overlap starting around 0:45.\n- Listen to speaker A's final turn (1:03 - 1:10). Check relevance and fluency. Note the acknowledgment of platypus and continuation.\n\n**Fluency Specific Check:**\n- 0:00 - 0:04 (A)\n- 0:04 - 0:07 (B) - Smooth turn, relevant response.\n- 0:07 - 0:15 (A) - Smooth turn, relevant response (initial theory).\n- 0:15 - 0:20 (B) - Overlap starts around 0:15. B interrupts A to correct the bee information. This is a relevant correction but causes an overlap. The overlap duration seems significant (0:15 to roughly 0:17, maybe slightly longer).\n- 0:20 - 0:22 - Pause. Maybe slightly long, but not >5s.\n- 0:22 - 0:30 (A) - Smooth turn after pause. A acknowledges the correction, which is good for relevance, and continues the topic of mammal evolution.\n- 0:31 - 0:35 (B) - Smooth turn, relevant follow-up question.\n- 0:36 - 0:45 (A) - Smooth turn, relevant response.\n- 0:45 - 0:59 (B) - Overlap starts around 0:45 while A is still speaking. B mentions egg-laying mammals (platypus). This causes a noticeable overlap. Overlap duration seems significant (0:45 to maybe 0:47/0:48).\n- 0:59 - 1:03 - Pause. Again, not >5s.\n- 1:03 - 1:10 (A) - Smooth turn after pause. A acknowledges B's point about the platypus and continues.\n\n**Response Relevance Evaluation:**\n- Speaker A starts by incorrectly stating bees are mammals.\n- Speaker B correctly identifies this error and corrects it.\n- Speaker A acknowledges the error and corrects herself.\n- The conversation then correctly shifts to mammal evolution, egg-laying mammals (platypus), and mammary glands.\n- All turns are relevant to the evolving topic, including the correction and acknowledgment.\n- The initial factual error by A is corrected by B and accepted by A, maintaining overall relevance and logical flow within the *interaction*.\n\n**Interactional Fluency Evaluation:**\n- There are two noticeable overlaps where one speaker interrupts the other.\n - Around 0:15, B interrupts A to correct the bee statement.\n - Around 0:45, B interrupts A to add a point about egg-laying mammals/platypus.\n- These overlaps seem longer than brief and are disruptive to the flow.\n- There are also pauses (e.g., 0:20-0:22, 0:59-1:03), but they don't appear to be over 5 seconds.\n- The overlaps are the main issue impacting fluency.\n\n**Scoring Decision:**\n- Response Relevance: The responses are relevant. The initial error is handled correctly through interaction (correction and acknowledgment). The subsequent discussion is on topic and factually correct. This aspect is good.\n- Interactional Fluency: The fluency is impacted by significant overlaps. These interruptions, while sometimes containing relevant points, disrupt the natural turn-taking rhythm. The overlaps are noticeable and seem to exceed the acceptable threshold for brief overlaps.\n\nBased on the criteria:\n- Score 1: Significant issues in *either* Response Relevance *or* Interactional Fluency.\n- Score 2: Both are consistently appropriate and natural.\n\nSince there are significant issues in Interactional Fluency due to the overlaps, the overall score should be 1.\nThe dialogue starts with Speaker A making a factual error about bees being mammals. Speaker B correctly identifies and points out this error. Speaker A acknowledges the mistake and corrects herself. The conversation then transitions to mammal evolution, discussing egg-laying mammals and mammary glands, which is a relevant follow-up to the initial topic of mammals. While Speaker A's initial statement was incorrect, the subsequent interaction handles this error appropriately, and the rest of the conversation remains relevant to the topic of mammals and their characteristics. Thus, the response relevance is maintained throughout the interaction.\n\n\n\nThe fluency of the interaction is impacted by noticeable overlaps. Speaker B interrupts Speaker A twice (around 0:15 and again around 0:45). These are not brief overlaps and disrupt the flow of the conversation. There are also small pauses, but none that appear to exceed the 5-second threshold. The primary issue affecting fluency is the recurring significant overlaps.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--472.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--472",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant to the conversation topic, which revolves around movies. Speaker A initiates the conversation by asking about favorite films after mentioning a Scorsese film. Speaker B responds with a specific film and provides a description when asked. They discuss specific movies like \"The Departed\" and \"Alice in Wonderland,\" sharing opinions and observations. The speakers ask relevant follow-up questions (e.g., asking what a movie is about, asking for suggestions) and provide reasons for their opinions or current movie-watching habits (e.g., being busy with travel). There is a slight redundancy when Speaker B re-asks about favorite movies after Speaker A listed genres, but this is a minor point and doesn't significantly disrupt the flow or relevance. Overall, the responses are accurate, logical, and contribute meaningfully to the discussion.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth throughout the conversation, with minimal hesitation or awkward transitions. There are no prolonged pauses that disrupt the flow (certainly none over 5 seconds). There are also no significant overlaps (none appear to be 2 seconds or longer); any minor overlaps are brief and natural, characteristic of a fluid conversation. The dialogue sounds natural and unscripted in its rhythm and pacing.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 3,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2350.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2350",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe conversation starts with Speaker A asking about hobbies, and Speaker B responds appropriately about playing games, specifically strategic games. Speaker A then makes a somewhat abrupt shift to talking about math, but links it back to \"analyzing patterns\" which relates tangentially to strategy games. Speaker B follows this tangent by asking \"How?\" and commenting on historical figures related to math, before attempting to steer the conversation back to games by asking about phone games. Speaker A follows back to the topic of games, and Speaker B continues discussing specific games. While there was a noticeable topic shift introduced by A, the subsequent responses generally followed the previous turn's content, even if it drifted from the initial topic. The conversation isn't perfectly linear but maintains a degree of relevance turn-by-turn. It doesn't exhibit significant issues in accuracy or logical consistency within each turn's response, though the overall flow feels slightly disjointed at one point. Given the criteria, the responses are generally relevant to the preceding turn, even during the tangent.\n\n\n\nThe interaction starts with smooth turn-taking. However, there is a noticeable and prolonged overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B starting around 00:22 and lasting for approximately 3 seconds, where Speaker B begins talking about strategy games while Speaker A is still finishing her sentence about math teachers. This prolonged overlap disrupts the natural flow of the conversation and is a significant issue according to the evaluation criteria. There are no other significant pauses (over 5s) or prolonged overlaps detected.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2061.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2061",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is consistently high. Speakers A and B stay focused on the topic of growing Pothos in a terrarium, specifically discussing factors like watering frequency, soil type, and humidity. Each response directly addresses or builds upon the previous speaker's contribution, demonstrating logical consistency and accurate understanding of the conversation's subject matter. For example, Speaker A's question about watering frequency directly follows Speaker B's mention of watering, and Speaker A's question about humidifiers follows Speaker B's comment about humidity. The conversation flows naturally from one relevant point to the next.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is generally acceptable but impacted by a significant pause. While the turn-taking is mostly smooth with only brief, natural-sounding overlaps (like Speaker A's interjection), there is a prolonged pause of approximately 10 seconds between Speaker B's comment ending at 0:27 and Speaker A's response beginning at 0:38. This pause is well over the 5-second threshold for acceptable pauses and disrupts the natural flow of the conversation, indicating a significant issue in interactional fluency. Other pauses (e.g., 0:14-0:18, 0:42-0:45) are within the acceptable limit.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2764.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2764",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant and logically follow the conversation flow. Speaker A initiates the topic of traveling to Paris, Speaker B expresses interest and asks about A's previous experience, Speaker A shares their experience, and the conversation naturally progresses to discussing specific sights and even potential travel plans (looking up flights). There are no irrelevant or nonsensical contributions from either speaker.\n\n\n\nThe turn-taking is generally smooth with only a very brief overlap that is acceptable. However, there is a significant prolonged pause of approximately 10 seconds between speaker A's turn ending around 0:25 and speaker B's next turn starting around 0:35. This pause is well over the 5-second threshold and severely disrupts the natural flow and interactional fluency of the dialogue.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2775.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2775",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is excellent. Speaker A and B stay on topic, discussing yoga and its benefits. Each response builds logically on the previous turn, with speakers sharing personal experiences, opinions, and relevant information about yoga poses and flexibility. There are no irrelevant tangents or misunderstandings.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is poor due to a significant pause. While most turns are smooth, there is a pause of approximately 10 seconds between Speaker A's utterance finishing at 0:26 and Speaker B's response starting at 0:36. Pauses over 5 seconds are considered harmful according to the instructions, indicating a significant issue in the natural flow of the conversation. There are no significant overlaps.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--447.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--447",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant to the conversation topic, which is the TV show \"Rick and Morty\". Speaker A introduces the topic, Speaker B asks clarifying questions showing lack of familiarity, and Speaker A provides relevant descriptions and information. Speaker B's follow-up questions about the genre and where to watch are logical continuations of the discussion. All responses are accurate based on the context provided within the dialogue and contribute to the flow of information exchange about the show.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds) that disrupt the flow. While there are a couple of very brief overlaps (e.g., around 0:06-0:07 and 0:16-0:17), they are short (less than 2 seconds) and feel natural, like eager interjections rather than disruptive interruptions. Turn-taking is generally smooth, with speakers yielding the floor after their turns.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--426.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--426",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe speakers' responses are generally relevant to the conversation's goal of providing and receiving recommendations. Speaker B asks relevant clarifying questions based on Speaker A's initial request. Speaker A provides relevant preferences. Speaker A introduces a new, related topic (restaurants) via an interruption, which Speaker B addresses before attempting to pivot to the Grand Canyon. While the mention of the Grand Canyon by Speaker B feels slightly out of the blue given Speaker A's stated preferences *within this clip* (eating, photos, parks), it is still a valid type of recommendation. Speaker A's follow-up about the Grand Canyon is relevant to B's suggestion. Speaker B's final interruption brings the topic back to the restaurants. There are instances of topic shifting and interruptions which slightly disrupt a strict question-answer flow, but the core responses remain within the thematic bounds of the conversation and are logically connected, preventing any significant issues with relevance or consistency.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are no long pauses exceeding 5 seconds. There are brief overlaps, notably when Speaker A interrupts Speaker B at around 0:17 and when Speaker B interrupts Speaker A at around 0:37. These overlaps are short and do not exceed the 2-second threshold for being considered harmful. The turn-taking is generally smooth and responsive, with speakers picking up cues quickly after the previous speaker finishes, apart from the deliberate interruptions.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--576.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--576",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "thought\nThe user wants me to evaluate a two-person dialogue based on Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\nI need to listen to the audio, analyze the conversation flow and content for relevance and smoothness, and then provide my analysis in the specified format: ``, ``, and ``.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n- Speaker A asks about IR (Information Retrieval?) and if B enjoys it. B confirms it's interesting. (Relevant)\n- A asks if B enjoys working with computers. B mentions getting a CS degree. (Relevant)\n- A asks how B likes CS. B says they like it and mentions working on problems. (Relevant)\n- A asks what kind of problems B is referring to (theoretical vs practical). B says both and transitions to programming languages, asking if A has experience. (Relevant transition, slight shift in topic but related).\n- A says not much experience, mentioning college classes but mainly doing research. A then asks about specific areas B focuses on, tying back to B's mention of solving problems. (Relevant and conversational)\n\nThe conversation flows logically, with each speaker responding directly to the previous turn or smoothly transitioning to a related topic. The questions and answers are relevant to the ongoing discussion about computer science and related fields.\n\n**Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\n- I need to listen for prolonged pauses (>5s) or significant overlaps (>2s).\n- 00:00 - 00:03: A speaks, short pause, B speaks. Fine.\n- 00:03 - 00:06: B speaks, short pause, A speaks. Fine.\n- 00:06 - 00:08: A speaks, short pause, B speaks. Fine.\n- 00:08 - 00:12: B speaks, short pause, A speaks. Fine.\n- 00:12 - 00:14: A speaks, short pause, B speaks. Fine.\n- 00:14 - 00:18: B speaks. A overlaps slightly at 00:18 asking \"What kind of problems...\". The overlap is brief, less than 2 seconds. This is acceptable per the instructions (\"Small pauses and brief overlaps in audio are acceptable\").\n- 00:18 - 00:23: A speaks. Short pause. B speaks. Fine.\n- 00:24 - 00:31: B speaks and asks a question. Short pause. A speaks. Fine.\n- 00:31 - 00:42: A speaks and asks a question. End of audio. Fine.\n\nThere are no prolonged pauses or significant overlaps. The turn-taking is natural and smooth.\n\n**Overall Score:**\nBoth Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency are consistently appropriate and natural. This fits the criteria for an Excellent score (2).\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker A initiates the conversation by asking about IR and if Speaker B enjoys it. Speaker B responds directly and confirms their interest. The conversation then flows naturally to related topics like working with computers, computer science, and specific problem-solving areas within the field. Speaker A's follow-up questions are based on Speaker B's previous statements (e.g., asking about the type of problems B enjoys solving after B mentions working on problems). Speaker B's transition to programming languages is also a relevant shift within the general domain of computer science. Speaker A's final question directly references B's earlier comment about solving problems, showing good conversational linking. All responses are accurate and logically consistent within the context of the discussion.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is smooth, with no significant pauses (over 5 seconds) or prolonged overlaps (over 2 seconds). There is a very brief overlap around the 18-second mark where Speaker A starts asking a question just as Speaker B finishes a sentence, but this is minor and falls within the acceptable range for brief overlaps mentioned in the instructions. The flow of the conversation feels natural and conversational.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2275.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2275",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are mostly relevant in the initial part of the conversation, discussing rock climbing and its fitness aspects. However, there is a significant breakdown in response relevance when Speaker B recommends \"Bar Trail in Colorado Springs,\" and Speaker A responds by talking about not having been to \"Boise\" in a while. Speaker B then follows up on the \"Boise\" comment instead of addressing the miscommunication or the original recommendation. This indicates a clear lack of logical consistency and accuracy in the latter part of the dialogue.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. There are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds) or excessive overlaps (over 2 seconds). Turn-taking is mostly smooth, with only minor, brief overlaps that are typical in natural conversation.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--594.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--594",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant to the conversation topic of disciplining a child. Speaker A initiates the topic and asks for advice. Speaker B asks clarifying questions that help narrow down the situation (type of child, current methods). Speaker A provides answers. Speaker B comments on the method and prompts for suggestions. Speaker A provides a suggestion (time-out). Speaker B then shifts slightly to ask about effective overall strategies, and Speaker A admits uncertainty, allowing Speaker B to introduce a new concept (positive reinforcement). Each turn logically follows the previous one, contributing to the discussion flow. There are no irrelevant or nonsensical responses.\n\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good. Turn-taking is smooth, with minimal and natural-sounding pauses between speakers. There are a few instances of slight overlap (e.g., around 00:27 and 00:45), but these are very brief and typical of natural conversation, not prolonged or disruptive (they do not last 2 seconds or more of simultaneous speech). There are no noticeable pauses that are excessively long (over 5 seconds). The flow feels natural and conversational.\n\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--609.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--609",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant and logical. Speaker B answers Speaker A's initial questions about their project directly. Speaker A's question about calculus concepts, while slightly interrupting Speaker B, is a relevant follow-up given that Speaker B just mentioned working on a calculus website. Speaker B then provides accurate, albeit brief, definitions for derivatives and integrals. The conversation flows logically from discussing the project to the specifics of calculus.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. The speakers take turns appropriately for the most part. There are no noticeable pauses longer than 5 seconds. There is a brief overlap around the 0:27/0:28 mark where Speaker A slightly interrupts Speaker B, but this overlap is short (less than 2 seconds) and does not significantly impede communication or sound unnatural for a casual conversation. The pace of the dialogue feels natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--449.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--449",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "Freeform response was detected, mental process will be shown.thought\nThe user wants me to evaluate a two-person dialogue based on two criteria: Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\n\nI need to listen to the audio and analyze:\n1. **Response Relevance**: Do the speakers respond appropriately and logically to each other's turns?\n2. **Interactional Fluency**: Is the turn-taking smooth? Are there long pauses (over 5s) or prolonged overlaps (over 2s)?\n\nThen, I need to provide a separate thinking process for each criterion within `` and `` tags, explaining my analysis and reasoning.\n\nFinally, I will give a single overall score (1 or 2) based on the combined evaluation within `` tags.\n\n**Audio Analysis:**\n- Speaker A starts: Talking about learning Italian food. (0:00)\n- Speaker B responds: Asks what dish was made. (0:03) - Relevant.\n- Speaker A responds: Names the dish (pasta with olive oil, garlic, chili flakes). (0:06) - Relevant.\n- Speaker B responds: Says it sounds delicious. (0:10) - Relevant.\n- Speaker A interrupts/overlaps: Says \"Sorry to cut in\" and asks about fresh or dried chili flakes, mentioning it makes a difference. (0:12) - Relevant to the previous turn, although an interruption. The interruption is brief and handled with an apology (\"Sorry to cut in\"), indicating an attempt at politeness despite the overlap. The question is relevant to the ingredients mentioned.\n- Speaker B responds: Says they used dried flakes. (0:19) - Relevant.\n- Speaker B adds: Talks about feeding five people for dinner. (0:21) - Seems slightly disconnected from the chili flake point, but perhaps relates to the *outcome* of making the dish. Not completely irrelevant, but a slight tangent.\n- Speaker A responds: Says \"I'm glad to hear it.\" (0:24) - Seems to respond to the 'feeding people' part. Relevant.\n- Speaker B asks: \"What's the best dish you've ever cooked?\" (0:26) - Topic shift, but a natural follow-up in a conversation about cooking. Relevant.\n- Speaker A responds: Says \"Um, that's hard\" and mentions \"lasagna\". (0:28) - Relevant.\n- Speaker B responds: Says they like lasagna and will have to make some. (0:32) - Relevant.\n- Speaker A interrupts/overlaps: Says \"Oh by the way, make sure to use a good quality ricotta cheese\" and explains it elevates the dish. (0:34) - Relevant advice related to lasagna. Another interruption/overlap, similar to the previous one, with an \"Oh by the way\" transition.\n- Speaker B responds: Says \"sometime\". (0:40) - A very brief response indicating agreement or future intention. Relevant.\n- Speaker A responds: Says \"That would be great\" and adds it's \"pretty easy, so don't feel nervous.\" (0:41) - Relevant, encouraging Speaker B about making lasagna.\n\n**Response Relevance Evaluation:**\n- The responses are generally relevant to the topic being discussed (cooking, specific dishes).\n- There are natural topic shifts (from the recent pasta dish to the best dish ever cooked).\n- One response from B (about feeding people) is slightly tangential but not completely off-topic.\n- A's interruptions, while interrupting, introduce points directly related to the dishes just mentioned (chili flakes for pasta, ricotta for lasagna). They are relevant contributions, even if the timing isn't perfect.\n- Overall, the content makes sense and follows a logical flow for a casual conversation about cooking.\n\n**Interactional Fluency Evaluation:**\n- There are a couple of instances of overlap (A interrupting B).\n - 0:12 Speaker A overlaps Speaker B. A says \"Sorry to cut in\", acknowledging the interruption. The overlap is brief, perhaps around 1-2 seconds.\n - 0:34 Speaker A overlaps Speaker B. A says \"Oh by the way\", introducing a new thought. This overlap also seems brief, perhaps around 1-2 seconds.\n- There are no long pauses (over 5 seconds). Turn-taking is generally quick.\n- The overlaps are short and seem like natural occurrences in a conversation, especially the first one where the speaker apologizes. The second one is also brief. Neither seems prolonged (over 2 seconds) or severely disruptive.\n\n**Scoring:**\n- **Response Relevance**: Good. The conversation stays on topic and responses are logical and relevant, with only minor tangents.\n- **Interactional Fluency**: Good. Turn-taking is quick, no long pauses. There are brief overlaps, but they are not prolonged or overly disruptive (they seem to be around 1-2 seconds maximum, or maybe just slightly over, but not significantly harmful based on the criteria definition). Speaker A even acknowledges one interruption.\n\nBoth criteria are evaluated as good/appropriate/natural based on the audio and criteria. Therefore, the overall score should be 2.\n\n**Constructing the output:**\n- Write the section, explaining that responses are relevant and logical, following the conversation flow, with minor tangents being acceptable in casual chat.\n- Write the section, noting the quick turn-taking, lack of long pauses, and acknowledging the brief overlaps but concluding they are not prolonged or severely harmful according to the criteria.\n- Set the to 2.\nThe responses are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker B asks about the dish Speaker A made, Speaker A describes it, Speaker B reacts, and Speaker A follows up with a relevant question about ingredients. They then naturally transition to discussing the \"best dish\" ever cooked, which leads to discussing lasagna. The advice about ricotta cheese is directly related to the lasagna topic. All turns maintain the flow and topic of the conversation about cooking.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. Turn-taking is quick and smooth overall, with no noticeable pauses exceeding 5 seconds. There are a couple of brief overlaps (e.g., around 0:12 and 0:34) where Speaker A slightly interrupts Speaker B, but these overlaps appear to be short (likely under 2 seconds) and not prolonged or disruptive. Speaker A even uses phrases like \"Sorry to cut in\" and \"Oh by the way\" to manage these transitions, indicating an attempt at smooth turn management despite the slight overlap. The lack of long pauses and the brevity of the overlaps contribute to a natural conversational flow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--465.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--465",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates good response relevance. Speaker A introduces the topic of the UN, and Speaker B responds appropriately, asking for A's view. Speaker A provides detailed information about the UN. Speaker B asks a relevant clarifying question about the selection process. Speaker A answers this question. Speaker A then attempts a transition to climate change, mentioning that B brought it up earlier (though this specific prior mention is not heard in the provided audio, the transition itself leads to a relevant discussion). Speaker B discusses climate change, and Speaker A connects it back to the UN's role. Speaker B adds a relevant point about the necessity of individual country cooperation. Speaker A agrees and returns to the previous topic (the Security Council term). The conversation flows logically between related points (UN structure, UN activities, climate change as an issue related to the UN's scope, limitations of the UN). Responses directly address questions or build upon the ongoing themes.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is also good. Turn-taking is mostly smooth. There are a couple of brief overlaps (e.g., Speaker B interrupting to ask a question or make a point), but these are functional and short, well within the acceptable limit of less than 2 seconds. There are no noticeable prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds) that disrupt the flow of the conversation. The speakers manage the transitions and interruptions without significant awkwardness.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 3,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2210.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2210",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are mostly relevant and follow a logical flow. Speaker A asks about Speaker B's favorite meal to try, and Speaker B responds by saying they don't cook but asks Speaker A about their favorite meal to make, which is a relevant adaptation. Speaker A answers this question directly. The topic shifts slightly after a long pause when Speaker B asks where to get dumplings, but this is still related to the previous discussion about Speaker A cooking dumplings. Speaker A provides a direct and helpful answer. The final response from Speaker B is also relevant, indicating a conclusion to the topic and conversation.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is significantly impacted by a very long pause in the middle of the dialogue. Speaker B's speech is cut off at 0:22, and there is a silence that lasts until Speaker B speaks again at 0:32, which is a 10-second pause. This far exceeds the acceptable limit of 5 seconds and disrupts the natural flow of the conversation. There are no noticeable prolonged overlaps. The long pause constitutes a significant issue for fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--671.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--671",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A proposes watching a show, and Speaker B confirms the show and expresses interest, showing direct relevance to the initial question. Speaker A then suggests getting food, and Speaker B responds by suggesting an alternative food option and provides a logical reason for the suggestion (having had Indian food for lunch). Each turn builds appropriately on the previous one, maintaining focus on the topic of the evening's plans.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is good. The turn-taking is generally smooth. There is a very brief, polite overlap at the beginning when Speaker B says \"Sorry to interrupt\", but this is a common and acceptable interactional feature and not a harmful prolonged overlap. There are no significant pauses (over 5 seconds) between turns. The dialogue feels natural and flows well based on the segment provided.\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2359.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2359",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue starts well with relevant responses regarding greetings and reading habits. However, there is a significant issue around 0:13-0:18. Speaker A states they have *not* read 'The Great Gatsby'. Speaker B cuts in to say it's worth reading but challenging, and then immediately asks \"What did you think of it?\", which implies they are asking A what they thought of Gatsby, despite A having just said they hadn't read it. This breaks the logical flow. Speaker A's subsequent response (0:21-0:27) about a book being hard to read doesn't directly address the question about Gatsby (which A hasn't read) and feels somewhat disconnected from the immediate turn, though it relates to the general topic of reading difficulty. This indicates a problem with maintaining accurate and logically consistent responses within the turn sequence. Later in the conversation, the topic shifts to a different book, and the responses related to that book are relevant. However, the earlier relevance breakdown is significant.\n\n\n\nThere is a brief overlap around 0:13, but it is not prolonged. There are several pauses throughout the dialogue. A pause between 0:18 and 0:21 is approximately 3 seconds, which is acceptable. However, there is a prolonged pause of approximately 11 seconds between 0:35 and 0:46. This is significantly longer than the acceptable 5-second limit and severely disrupts the flow and naturalness of the interaction.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2037.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2037",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe interaction starts with relevant responses, transitioning from science to history smoothly. Speaker B asks a relevant follow-up question about history. However, Speaker A then abruptly changes the topic to red pandas, which is completely unrelated to the previous discussion about history. While the subsequent turns are relevant to the new topic (red pandas), the sudden, unprompted shift demonstrates a significant issue in maintaining logical consistency and flow within the conversation, impacting overall response relevance.\n\n\n\nThe turn-taking is mostly smooth at the beginning, with only one brief, acceptable overlap from Speaker B when asking for clarification on history. There is an acceptable pause after Speaker B's question. However, there is a very long pause between approximately 0:33 and 0:43, lasting about 10 seconds. This pause significantly exceeds the acceptable 5-second limit and disrupts the natural flow and fluency of the interaction. Speaker A is also cut off briefly at 0:32, but this is not a prolonged overlap. The extended pause is the main fluency issue.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--665.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--665",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "0\n\nThe responses in this dialogue are highly relevant and logical. The conversation starts with a general question about building a PC, moves to agreeing it's fun, then narrows down to discussing specific components like processors (comparing potential Intel and AMD references) and graphics cards. Each speaker's response builds on the previous turn, showing understanding and engagement with the topic of PC building. The suggested components (processors, graphics cards, specific GPU series) are relevant to someone building a PC, especially for gaming as mentioned by Speaker A.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds). There is one brief overlap around the 0:13-0:15 mark where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is finishing, but Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), making the turn-taking relatively smooth despite the momentary overlap. The rest of the turn-taking is clean.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--597.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--597",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe response relevance is generally appropriate for a casual conversation. Speaker A asks about a favorite place, mentioning islands. Speaker B responds with a favorite activity (hiking) and type of location (nature trail), which is a relevant answer to the general question about a favorite place, although it doesn't specifically address islands. Speaker A then picks up on B's hiking topic, expresses excitement about their own experience, and asks a specific question about hiking in the Alps. This pivots the conversation but remains relevant to the new topic introduced by B. Speaker B acknowledges the Alps but redirects the topic slightly to their preference for hiking in South America, which is also relevant to the hiking theme. Speaker A then asks a specific follow-up question about trails in South America, directly building on B's last statement. While the topic shifts from islands to hiking to South America, the responses are generally logically connected to the preceding turn, keeping the conversation flowing in a relevant manner.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no noticeable long pauses (over 5 seconds) between turns. The turn-taking is quick and smooth, with speakers responding promptly after the other finishes. There are no significant overlaps (2 seconds or more). Speaker A's \"Sorry to interrupt\" at 00:07 suggests a potential overlap was intended or anticipated, but the audio shows A starts immediately *after* B finishes at 00:06, so there isn't an actual overlap in the recording. This rapid back-and-forth contributes to the natural and fluent feel of the conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2965.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2965",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant and logically connected. Speaker B introduces the Hyperloop, Speaker A asks for details, Speaker B provides them, Speaker A asks about feasibility and affordability, and Speaker B responds to those questions, adding their personal perspective. The conversation flows naturally from one related topic to the next, primarily centered around the Hyperloop concept.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is significantly impacted by a prolonged pause. There is a substantial pause lasting approximately 10 seconds between Speaker B's statement about taking a vacation on the Hyperloop (ending around 0:43) and Speaker A's question about ticket prices (starting around 0:53). This pause is well over the acceptable 5-second limit and disrupts the smooth flow of the conversation. There are also shorter pauses that are acceptable, and a very brief overlap at 0:42 that is also acceptable. However, the long pause constitutes a significant issue in fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2296.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2296",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nAnalysing Response Relevance and giving reasons for scoring:\nSpeaker A initiates the conversation about adopting a dog. Speaker B initially provides relevant advice *if* A decides to adopt. However, Speaker A shifts the focus to concerns about having enough time. Speaker B's response at 00:15 is slightly confused, asking Speaker A if they are sure they want to and repeating the question Speaker A just asked (\"Do you have enough time for him?\"). Speaker A then elaborates on having time and *why* they want a dog. Speaker B's final response at 00:27 introduces an entirely new, seemingly unrelated reason for why B *thought* A wanted a dog (\"because you were going to move out soon\"), which is disconnected from the preceding discussion about time and personal motivation for getting a dog. The conversation does not flow logically due to Speaker B's inconsistent responses, particularly the repeated question at 00:15 and the introduction of an external, irrelevant reason at 00:27. This indicates significant issues in Response Relevance.\n\n\n\nAnalysing Interactional Fluency and giving reasons for scoring:\nThe turn-taking is mostly smooth. There is a brief overlap at 00:09 when Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. This overlap is short and within acceptable limits as per the instructions (\"Small pauses and brief overlaps in audio are acceptable\"). There are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds) or extended overlaps (2 seconds or more). The pace and transitions are natural apart from the brief overlap. Interactional Fluency is appropriate and natural.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 4,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2856.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2856",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant and logical. Speaker A asks appropriate follow-up questions based on Speaker B's statements about their diet and wanting to learn to cook. Speaker B provides relevant answers, explains their diet type, mentions wanting to learn to cook healthy meals (linking it back to A's cooking), and suggests specific dishes like salad or pasta. The transition to starting to learn how to cook pasta is logical, building on B's expressed interest. Both speakers maintain the topic flow effectively.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is mostly smooth with natural turn-taking and acceptable brief overlaps/pauses initially. However, there is a significant prolonged pause of approximately 9 seconds between Speaker A's cut-off sentence at 0:51 and her continuation at 1:00. This pause exceeds the 5-second threshold and negatively impacts the overall fluency of the conversation.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--627.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--627",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A initiates with a general greeting, and Speaker B responds and introduces the topic of buying a new gaming console. This naturally leads to Speaker A asking about retro games. Speaker B asks for clarification on \"retro,\" which Speaker A provides with a good definition and description. Although Speaker B seems to mishear or mispronounce \"design\" as \"doze\" when asking for clarification on \"better at providing,\" Speaker A interprets the question correctly as being about the design aspect and responds appropriately. Speaker B then asks for specific game recommendations, a logical continuation of the topic, and Speaker A provides relevant examples. The conversation flows well and stays on topic throughout.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. There are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds) observed. There are a couple of instances of brief overlap (under 2 seconds), such as when Speaker B interrupts Speaker A to ask for clarification or recommendations. These overlaps are short and feel natural within the context of a dynamic conversation rather than being disruptive. The turn-taking is mostly smooth, allowing the conversation to progress without significant hitches.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--521.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--521",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "thought\nThe user wants me to evaluate a two-person dialogue based on Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\nI need to listen to the audio and analyze how well the speakers' responses fit the conversation and how smoothly they take turns.\nThen I will write my analysis in `` and `` tags, and assign an overall score (1 or 2) in `` tags.\n\n**Audio Analysis Plan:**\n1. **Listen to the dialogue:** Pay attention to the content and flow.\n2. **Evaluate Response Relevance:**\n * Does Speaker B answer Speaker A's questions?\n * Does Speaker A respond appropriately to Speaker B's statements?\n * Do they stay on the topic (math/subjects)?\n * Are the follow-up questions logical?\n3. **Evaluate Interactional Fluency:**\n * Are there long pauses (> 5s)?\n * Are there long overlaps (> 2s)?\n * Is the turn-taking smooth? Do they interrupt excessively?\n4. **Synthesize and Score:**\n * Write the response relevance analysis.\n * Write the fluency analysis.\n * Determine the overall score based on both criteria. If both are good, score 2. If either has significant issues, score 1.\n\n**Dialogue Transcript (approximate):**\nA: Are you good at math? (0:00)\nB: Yeah, it's my favorite subject. (0:01)\nA: Algebra is definitely not my favorite subject. How about you? What's your favorite topic within [math]? (0:04)\nB: Actually, I find algebra quite interesting because of its logical structure. But what's your favorite subject? (0:09)\nA: That would probably be history or English. What's your favorite subject? (0:15)\nB: Physics. And math is a close second. (0:19)\nA: Physics sounds really fun, but I am not very good at math. I am really bad at solving complex [problems]. (0:22)\nB: Algebra can be tricky, but once you get the hang of it, it becomes much easier. Have you tried any online resources or tutoring? (0:28)\nA: No, I haven't tried that yet. I was going to say, I'm really bad at algebra. Maybe tutoring could help. (0:35)\n\n**Evaluation:**\n* **Response Relevance:**\n * A asks if B is good at math. B says yes and it's their favorite. (Relevant)\n * A shifts to a specific topic (algebra) and asks B's favorite math topic. B addresses algebra, states why they like it, and then asks A's *favorite subject* (not just math topic). This is a slight shift, but still relevant to the overall theme of subjects. (Relevant)\n * A answers B's question (favorite subject) and then repeats the question back to B. (Relevant)\n * B answers A's question (favorite subject). (Relevant)\n * A comments on B's subjects (Physics, math) and returns to the initial topic of *their* math ability (not good). (Relevant)\n * B responds to A's statement about not being good at math (algebra) and offers a suggestion (resources/tutoring). (Relevant)\n * A responds to B's suggestion and repeats the idea that tutoring might help with their algebra difficulties. (Relevant)\n * All responses are relevant, logical, and maintain the flow of the conversation about subjects and math ability.\n* **Interactional Fluency:**\n * Turn-taking seems natural.\n * No significant pauses observed (> 5s).\n * No significant overlaps observed (> 2s). There might be very brief, natural overlaps common in conversation, but nothing harmful. The audio cuts off at 0:41, which doesn't show the conclusion but the turns leading up to it seem smooth.\n\n**Conclusion:**\nBoth Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency seem good based on the provided audio segment. The dialogue flows naturally, responses are relevant, and there are no major issues with turn-taking or timing. This suggests a score of 2.\nThe responses between speakers A and B are consistently relevant and logical. Speaker A initiates by asking about math ability, and Speaker B responds directly. The conversation naturally evolves to favorite subjects and then specific difficulties (algebra) and potential solutions (tutoring). Each turn builds on the previous one, making the conversation coherent and easy to follow. There are no irrelevant detours or nonsensical statements.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth, with speakers responding promptly to each other. There are no noticeable long pauses (over 5 seconds) that disrupt the flow, nor are there prolonged overlaps (over 2 seconds) that make it difficult to understand the speakers. The pacing feels natural for a casual conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--482.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--482",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses between speakers A and B are consistently relevant to the topic of making baked potatoes. Speaker A asks about cooking preferences, Speaker B states they want to try baked potatoes, and the subsequent turns revolve around this topic, discussing ease of making, instructions, necessary equipment, and types of potatoes. There are no irrelevant comments or illogical jumps in the conversation flow.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. Turn-taking is smooth with no significant pauses (over 5 seconds). There are a couple of instances where Speaker B starts speaking just as Speaker A is finishing or about to elaborate, but these are very brief overlaps (less than 2 seconds) and sound like natural conversational interruptions to ask clarifying questions before proceeding, rather than disruptive talking over.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--624.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--624",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are highly relevant and logically consistent throughout the dialogue. The conversation flows naturally from general topics (favorite animals) to more specific ones (types of pets, living situations affecting pet ownership). Speaker A's questions follow logically from Speaker B's statements, and vice versa. There is one point where Speaker B assumes Speaker A has a cat based on A's question about cats being allowed, but this is a minor conversational misinterpretation that doesn't detract significantly from the overall relevance.\n\n\n\nBased on the provided criteria, there are no pauses over 5 seconds and no overlaps of 2 seconds or more. There are a couple of brief overlaps/interruptions (e.g., A interrupting B at 0:10 and 0:32), but these appear to be well under the 2-second threshold specified as harmful. The turn-taking is generally smooth and responsive, contributing to good interactional fluency.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2227.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2227",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe conversation starts with Speaker A asking for recommendations on hamster types. Speaker B initially responds by asking about space, which is a relevant consideration for choosing a breed. However, Speaker B then mentions \"hamsters in the Arctic,\" which is not a recognized hamster breed and seems like a non-serious or incorrect suggestion. The conversation then drifts further away from the original topic, moving to guinea pigs and then to the concept of \"a pigging,\" which is defined as a joke related to styling hair. The responses do not consistently address the initial request for hamster breed recommendations, and the dialogue becomes increasingly off-topic and non-factual regarding pets. This indicates significant issues with response relevance and logical consistency regarding the initial topic.\n\n\n\nThere is a very long pause of approximately 10 seconds between Speaker A's first turn (0:00-0:04) and Speaker B's response (0:15-0:22). This pause is well over the 5-second threshold mentioned as being harmful to interactional fluency. There is a brief overlap at 0:04, which is acceptable. Apart from the initial long pause, turn-taking is relatively smooth, but the prolonged silence at the beginning constitutes a significant issue in interactional fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--404.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--404",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Speaker A's questions are directly addressed by Speaker B, and vice versa. For example, Speaker A asks about the type of science Speaker B does, and Speaker B provides a direct answer about teaching. Speaker B asks what Speaker A likes about science, and Speaker A responds that they love space. While Speaker B interjects briefly about their shared interest in space before Speaker A fully answers the question about their field, Speaker A does subsequently answer this question by discussing dark matter, maintaining logical flow. The conversation then naturally transitions to a relevant hypothetical scenario (encountering alien life) stemming from the space topic, and the speakers discuss the pros and cons of communication logically and considerately, acknowledging each other's points. The responses build upon previous turns, demonstrating strong coherence and relevance throughout the interaction.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth with no prolonged pauses exceeding 5 seconds. There are some brief overlaps, such as Speaker B's apology for \"jumping in,\" but these are short and natural within a conversational context and do not impede understanding or flow significantly. No overlaps appear to last for 2 seconds or more. The rhythm and pacing of the dialogue feel natural and comfortable, contributing to an overall fluent interaction.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2043.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2043",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are consistently relevant to the conversation about hiking tomorrow. Speakers A and B successfully negotiate the activity, confirm details like the start time, discuss logistics such as meeting point and parking availability, and adjust the plan based on potential issues (crowded parking). There is a minor speech error by Speaker B (\"T here\"), but the intent and relevance of the question about parking are clear. The conversation progresses logically from the initial proposal to final logistical arrangements. Therefore, Response Relevance is excellent.\n\n\n\nThe interaction features generally smooth turn-taking without any long pauses (over 5 seconds). However, there is a significant overlap between speakers B and A around the 0:25-0:29 mark where Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still talking. This overlap appears to be 2 seconds or longer, which constitutes a significant issue based on the criteria. Although other parts are fluent, this prolonged overlap negatively impacts the overall interactional fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 6,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--507.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--507",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe speakers engage in a focused discussion about the Revolutionary War. Speaker A introduces the topic and its importance, which Speaker B acknowledges. Speaker A then interrupts to ask for clarification on the importance, which is relevant to the initial statement. The subsequent turns involve a debate about the specific causes of the war (independence, political ideologies, economic/social factors). Both speakers present different perspectives and respond directly to the points raised by the other, maintaining logical consistency within their arguments about historical causes. The responses are consistently relevant to the topic and the flow of the conversation about the war's origins.\n\n\n\nThe turn-taking between speakers is generally smooth. There are no long pauses (over 5 seconds) at any point. There are a few very brief overlaps (less than 0.5 seconds) when one speaker starts just as the other finishes, or slightly before. These are minor and fall under the category of acceptable brief overlaps, rather than prolonged or disruptive ones (over 2 seconds). The rhythm of the conversation feels natural for an interactional dialogue.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--675.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--675",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A initiates the conversation about the MacBook, and Speaker B provides relevant information and an opinion. Speaker A then shifts the topic naturally to the Surface Pro 4, and Speaker B immediately asks a relevant question about its compatibility for work. Speaker A provides an appropriate response regarding compatibility. The conversation flows logically from one point to the next, with each speaker's contribution building on the previous turn. There are no instances of off-topic responses or illogical statements.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds) or overlaps (over 2 seconds) observed in the audio. Turn-taking is smooth and rapid, contributing to a natural conversational flow. Speaker A's brief interruption at 00:04 is acknowledged and handled politely (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), which is acceptable in natural speech and does not disrupt the overall fluency.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--515.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--515",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "2\nSpeaker A introduces the topic of child discipline techniques, specifically mentioning the \"five-second rule.\" Speaker B asks for clarification, showing engagement. Speaker A explains the rule, but B immediately raises a concern about physically forcing a child, which isn't what A described. Speaker A clarifies that they don't want to force the child but stop them from taking things. Speaker B acknowledges this concern and suggests another technique might exist, which is a reasonable response acknowledging A's goal but questioning the method. Speaker A asks for a recommendation, showing they are open to alternatives. Speaker A then states they were going to explain the rule more, which feels slightly out of sync with B suggesting another technique, but it's still relevant to the initial topic. Speaker B's final comment about parenting being tricky is a general statement but relates back to the overall theme.\n\nOverall, the responses are generally relevant to the topic of child discipline techniques and the specific rule being discussed, even if B's initial reaction misinterprets the rule slightly. The speakers engage with each other's points, clarifying and responding to concerns. The flow of ideas is logical within the context of a discussion about a specific method and its challenges.\n\n\n\nThe interaction proceeds with appropriate turn-taking. Speaker B waits for A to finish explaining before asking a question. Speaker A finishes their initial point before B interjects with a concern. There is a brief overlap around 0:15 when B starts speaking before A finishes their sentence about encouraging them, but it's very short and doesn't disrupt understanding significantly. Similarly, there's a tiny overlap around 0:23/0:24 when B starts. There are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds) or significant overlaps (2 seconds or more) that hinder the flow. The pace feels natural for a conversation.\n\n\n22\nSpeaker A introduces the topic of child discipline techniques, specifically mentioning the \"five-second rule.\" Speaker B asks for clarification, showing engagement. Speaker A explains the rule, but B immediately raises a concern about physically forcing a child, which isn't what A described. Speaker A clarifies that they don't want to force the child but stop them from taking things. Speaker B acknowledges this concern and suggests another technique might exist, which is a reasonable response acknowledging A's goal but questioning the method. Speaker A asks for a recommendation, showing they are open to alternatives. Speaker A then states they were going to explain the rule more, which feels slightly out of sync with B suggesting another technique, but it's still relevant to the initial topic. Speaker B's final comment about parenting being tricky is a general statement but relates back to the overall theme.\n\nOverall, the responses are generally relevant to the topic of child discipline techniques and the specific rule being discussed, even if B's initial reaction misinterprets the rule slightly. The speakers engage with each other's points, clarifying and responding to concerns. The flow of ideas is logical within the context of a discussion about a specific method and its challenges.\n\n\n\nThe interaction proceeds with appropriate turn-taking. Speaker B waits for A to finish explaining before asking a question. Speaker A finishes their initial point before B interjects with a concern. There is a brief overlap around 0:15 when B starts speaking before A finishes their sentence about encouraging them, but it's very short and doesn't disrupt understanding significantly. Similarly, there's a tiny overlap around 0:23/0:24 when B starts. There are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds) or significant overlaps (2 seconds or more) that hinder the flow. The pace feels natural for a conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--664.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--664",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are consistently relevant to the topic of Virginia Woolf. Speaker A introduces the topic and provides information. Speaker B asks clarifying questions related to her work and influence, which keeps the conversation focused. Although Speaker B interrupts twice, the interruptions are brief and related to the topic being discussed or the direction the conversation is taking, demonstrating engagement rather than a lack of relevance. The responses are logically consistent with the questions asked.\n\n\n\nThe interaction is generally fluent. There are two brief overlaps where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A (at 0:12 and 0:24). These overlaps are short (well under 2 seconds) and sound like natural conversational interruptions rather than prolonged disruptive ones. Turn-taking is otherwise smooth, and there are no noticeable pauses over 5 seconds.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 4,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2089.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2089",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are highly relevant and logical. Speaker A asks for help with a task (installing a washer). Speaker B immediately responds by addressing practical considerations for that task (necessary tools and offering to bring them). Speaker A then confirms the tool situation and makes a specific request based on Speaker B's offer. Speaker B confirms the request and asks for further necessary information regarding the task's execution (location). The dialogue flows logically towards planning the task.\n\n\n\nThere is a significant pause between Speaker A's initial request (ending around 00:03) and Speaker B's first response (starting around 00:13). This pause is approximately 9 seconds long, which is well over the 5-second threshold mentioned in the criteria for acceptable pauses. This long pause disrupts the natural flow of the interaction. There are no noticeable prolonged overlaps.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--674.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--674",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant and logical. Speaker A initiates the conversation, and Speaker B responds appropriately. The conversation flows naturally from general well-being to health goals, specific methods for achieving them (eating healthier, exercising), and then shifts topics smoothly first to cooking (related to healthy eating) and then confirms a plan to cook together. Each speaker's turn builds upon the previous one or introduces a related concept without abrupt or confusing jumps. There are no instances of misunderstanding or irrelevant contributions.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is smooth throughout the dialogue with no noticeable long pauses (over 5s). There are a couple of instances where one speaker begins their turn just as the other is finishing, leading to brief overlaps (e.g., around 00:12-00:13 and 00:48-00:49), which are common in natural conversation and do not appear prolonged or harmful (less than 2 seconds). The pace is natural, contributing to a highly fluent interaction.\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--486.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--486",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant to the conversation. Speaker A initiates by sharing news of winning a tennis tournament. Speaker B responds appropriately with congratulations and a relevant clarifying question about the tournament type. Speaker A answers this question and then reiterates their original question about whether B has won anything. Speaker B answers this question, and the conversation continues with relevant follow-up questions about prizes and preparation. Although Speaker B interrupts twice to ask related questions, they do return to answer the question posed by Speaker A, maintaining the flow of information exchange within the established topic. The responses are logical and contribute to the conversation's development.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth and natural throughout the dialogue. There are no noticeable pauses longer than 5 seconds. There are two instances of brief overlap, both around 0.2 seconds in duration (A speaking slightly while B begins their turn at 00:10.5 and 00:24.3). These short overlaps are typical of natural conversation and do not impede understanding or flow. The speakers are responsive and transition between turns effectively.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2072.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2072",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are generally relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A expresses a desire to cook a pasta dish, and Speaker B immediately offers a specific recipe suggestion that aligns perfectly with this topic. The conversation then flows logically into clarifying details about the recipe (what kind of pasta/sauce), expressing interest, and discussing practical aspects like necessary equipment. While Speaker A slightly interrupts the flow by asking about equipment after Speaker B asks about pesto experience, it is still a relevant point within the overall topic of making the dish. Overall, the content of the turns makes sense and contributes to the conversation about the pasta recipe.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency of the dialogue is impacted by noticeable issues. There is a significant overlap around the 0:14-0:15 mark where Speaker B begins speaking over Speaker A's final words. This prolonged overlap disrupts the smooth turn-taking. There is also a 3-second pause between 0:42 and 0:45 after Speaker B asks a question before Speaker A responds, but this pause is within the acceptable limit of less than 5 seconds. The primary fluency issue is the significant overlapping speech.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 4,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2884.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2884",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant. Speaker A initiates by asking about Speaker B's day, and B provides a direct answer. The conversation then flows logically through asking about activities, what was made for breakfast, Speaker A's intention to learn cooking, and a request for tips. Speaker B's responses directly address Speaker A's questions and comments, and Speaker A builds upon B's statements. The conversation maintains coherence and stays on topic.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency of this dialogue has significant issues. While there are minor acceptable overlaps and a pause just under the 5-second threshold early on (0:09-0:13, ~4s), there is a very long and disruptive pause lasting approximately 10 seconds (from 0:20 to 0:30). This long pause breaks the flow of the conversation significantly and also causes Speaker A's question to be split, negatively impacting the naturalness of the turn-taking.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--511.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--511",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in this dialogue are generally relevant and logically consistent. Speaker B answers Speaker A's initial question directly. Speaker A's follow-up question about seeds and climates is relevant to the topic of seeds. Speaker B provides a relevant answer and smoothly transitions by asking Speaker A about their plants. Speaker A lists their plants, and Speaker B picks up on one of them (basil) and asks a relevant question. Speaker A's final response confirms they have tips and then provides them, although they interject a comment about marijuana plants again before giving the basil tips, which feels slightly disruptive but is still related to their previous statement. Overall, the conversation flows logically and answers are mostly on topic.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is good. Turn-taking is smooth with no noticeable prolonged pauses (over 5s). There is a brief overlap at the beginning (around 0:06) where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B, but this is short and does not significantly impede the flow of conversation. There are no other significant overlaps. The pacing feels natural for a conversational exchange.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 3,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2887.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2887",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe speakers maintain good response relevance throughout the dialogue. Speaker A asks relevant questions about dog grooming, and Speaker B provides logical and informative answers, including clarifying terms like \"naked\" grooming. Speaker A's follow-up questions and comments demonstrate understanding and engagement with the topic. There are no instances where a speaker fails to address the previous turn or introduces irrelevant information.\n\n\n\nThe interaction starts with reasonable fluency, with speakers taking turns smoothly. However, there is a significant break in fluency around 0:27 when Speaker A attempts to interject but stops, followed by a prolonged pause of approximately 9 seconds before Speaker A successfully initiates their turn again. This long pause disrupts the natural flow of the conversation and constitutes a significant issue in interactional fluency. There are no prolonged overlaps.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--470.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--470",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are highly relevant and logical throughout the dialogue. Speaker A asks about paintbrushes and plans, and Speaker B answers directly. Speaker A comments on expense, and Speaker B provides a practical alternative. Speaker A asks for information about the flea market, and Speaker B provides it, including details about the types of items found there, specifically art supplies when asked. Speaker B's questions about quality and brush material are also relevant to the ongoing topic of painting and the flea market. The conversation progresses naturally from one topic to a related one based on the speakers' contributions.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is generally good, with appropriate turn-taking and no pauses longer than 5 seconds or overlaps lasting 2 seconds or more. However, there are two instances where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A (around 00:14 and 00:47). While these are brief cut-ins and not prolonged overlaps, they do slightly disrupt the smoothness of the turn-taking. Despite these minor interruptions, the conversation flows reasonably well, and there are no significant breakdowns or awkward silences. Based on the specific criteria of avoiding pauses >5s or overlaps >= 2s, the fluency is acceptable.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--586.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--586",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Speaker A introduces the topic of social democracy, and Speaker B directly responds with their thoughts on its feasibility. When Speaker A asks for clarification, Speaker B poses a relevant clarifying question. The conversation then smoothly transitions from social democracy to socialism and the Scandinavian model, which is a logical progression. Speakers consistently respond to the previous speaker's point or question (e.g., A asking about Scandinavia after B mentions socialism, B explaining why they dislike wealth redistribution after A asks). The arguments presented by Speaker B regarding socialism are clear and directly address the topic. There are no irrelevant responses or tangents.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. Turn-taking is generally smooth, with appropriate pauses that feel natural for a conversation. There is one brief overlap at around 0:18 when Speaker B interrupts Speaker A to ask a clarifying question (\"Sorry to cut in...\"). This overlap is short and serves a functional purpose within the dialogue (clarification), and it does not impede the flow significantly (it is less than 2 seconds). There are no noticeable pauses exceeding the 5-second threshold.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2376.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2376",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant. Speaker A introduces the book and author. Speaker B asks a relevant clarifying question about the author's name. Speaker A answers and provides additional relevant context. Speaker B then asks about the author's wife, which is also relevant to the overall topic of the author. Speaker A responds with the wife's name and her significance, then attempts to return to their original point about the author's standing, which is also relevant. The conversation stays focused on the topic and responses are logical and appropriate within that context.\n\n\n\nThere is a clear disruption in interactional fluency. At 00:11, Speaker B interrupts Speaker A with \"Sorry to interrupt. but did you know who his wife was?\". Based on the transcript timing (00:12-00:16) and the length of Speaker B's utterance following the interruption, it suggests a prolonged overlap where Speaker B is speaking over Speaker A for several seconds while A is still talking (\"especially for his portrayal of the n...\"). The scoring criteria state that \"prolonged pauses and overlapping audio are harmful.\" This instance appears to be a harmful overlap, indicating a significant issue with interactional fluency. There are no obvious long pauses indicated by the transcript.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--423.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--423",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant and logically connected. Speaker A introduces the topic of puppy training after mentioning being busy, which is relevant to explaining how they found time for the class. Speaker B follows up by asking about the dog and then the type of training. Speaker A details the training goals, and Speaker B seeks clarification on a specific point, demonstrating engagement. The conversation progresses naturally from general greetings to a specific discussion about dog training goals and future possibilities. There are no instances of irrelevant responses or breaks in the logical flow of the conversation.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is smooth throughout the dialogue. There are no noticeable long pauses (over 5 seconds) between turns. While there are a couple of very brief overlaps (e.g., Speaker B at the start of their turns at 0:39 and 0:53), these are very short and typical of natural conversation, lasting well under 2 seconds. These overlaps function more as eager interjections or slight topic shifts rather than prolonged disruptions. Overall, the pacing and turn management contribute to a natural and fluent interaction.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2381.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2381",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are generally relevant and logical. Speaker A initiates the conversation, asks about travel plans, responds to Speaker B's plans, shares her own travel preferences (amusement parks), discusses rollercoasters, and names a specific rollercoaster she's heard about based on a previous turn. Speaker B responds to A's initial questions, shares his travel hopes, asks about A's travel preferences, discusses rollercoasters, asks about A's opinion on the most thrilling rollercoaster, and reacts to A's suggestion. The topic shifts naturally from general greetings to weather, then travel plans, and finally to specific types of travel (amusement parks) and rollercoasters. There is one minor abrupt topic shift from B's Colorado plans to asking A about her favorite trip type, but it is still within the broader theme of travel and not illogical.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is mostly smooth with appropriate turn-taking and no significant pauses (over 5s). However, there is a prolonged overlap between 0:18 and 0:21 where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B to comment on Colorado. This overlap lasts for approximately 3 seconds, which is longer than the acceptable brief overlap and constitutes a significant issue according to the criteria.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2878.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2878",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are relevant to the conversation topic of favorite characters/creatures (\"Caine\" is likely a mishearing or transcription error for \"Pokemon\", and \"Pier\" for another name). Speaker B answers the question about their favorite, Speaker A reacts to this and shares a personal anecdote, and Speaker B responds and asks a follow-up question, which Speaker A answers. The conversation flows logically and stays on topic.\n\n\n\nThe interaction exhibits a significant issue with interactional fluency. There is a long pause of approximately 10 seconds between speaker B's first turn (ending around 0:06) and speaker A's second turn (starting around 0:16). This violates the criteria of avoiding pauses over 5 seconds and significantly disrupts the flow of the dialogue. There are no noticeable long overlaps.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2805.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2805",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are highly relevant and logical throughout the dialogue. Speaker A asks about plans, Speaker B responds directly and offers flexibility. Speaker A suggests fishing, which is a relevant topic given B's availability. Speaker B expresses interest and asks a relevant follow-up question about the time. Speaker A responds with flexibility, and Speaker B suggests a specific time. The conversation progresses smoothly in terms of content and topic.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency has a significant issue. While the turn-taking is generally smooth at the beginning and end with only minor acceptable overlaps, there is a very long pause between speaker A's invitation to fish (ending at 0:13) and speaker B's continuation/question (starting at 0:24). This pause is approximately 11 seconds, which is well over the 5-second threshold and disrupts the natural flow of the conversation significantly.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2091.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2091",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are generally relevant to the topic of dangerous animals in South America. Speaker A asks for information, and Speaker B provides acknowledgements, asks clarifying questions (like what types of animals A is worried about), and offers advice (local guides).\n\nHowever, there are slight deviations. Speaker B initially suggests visiting the Amazon rainforest (0:07-0:11) before Speaker A has stated where they are going. While the Amazon is relevant to dangerous animals, it's a specific suggestion made prematurely. Speaker B brings up the Amazon again (0:25) after Speaker A has specified they are going to Peru. While Peru contains parts of the Amazon, the continued general focus on the Amazon after a specific destination was given is a minor point of less precise relevance.\n\nDespite these minor tangents, the core of the conversation remains focused on dangerous animals and safety in South America, making the responses largely appropriate and logically consistent.\n\n\n\nThe interaction includes a noticeable overlap where both speakers are talking simultaneously for an extended period. Around 0:11, Speaker A interrupts Speaker B with \"Sorry to jump in...\" while Speaker B is still talking about the Amazon rainforest. This overlap appears to last for approximately 4 seconds (from around 0:11.5 to 0:15.5), which exceeds the threshold of \"overlaps for 2s or more\" considered harmful by the criteria.\n\nApart from this specific overlap, the turn-taking is relatively smooth with appropriate small pauses between turns. There are no long pauses exceeding 5 seconds. However, the significant overlap constitutes a clear fluency issue according to the specified criteria.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2008.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2008",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses from both speakers are consistently relevant to the topic of the wine tasting class. Speaker A introduces the topic, provides details about the class and their feelings about it. Speaker B asks relevant questions about the class (cost, food pairings) and shares a related personal experience. The conversation flows logically from one point to the next. There are no instances of irrelevant or illogical responses. Response Relevance is excellent.\n\n\n\nThere are no noticeable long pauses (over 5 seconds) in the dialogue. However, there is a significant overlap between the speakers. At approximately 00:18, Speaker B begins speaking (\"By the way, did they provide...\") while Speaker A is still actively talking (\"...really looking forward to learning...\"). This overlap continues for several seconds until Speaker A finishes around 00:22. This overlap is longer than a brief interruption and exceeds the 2-second threshold for harmful overlap mentioned in the instructions, disrupting the flow of Speaker A's turn. While there's a minor overlap at the very end (00:32), the earlier, more prolonged overlap significantly impacts the interactional fluency. Due to this significant overlap, Interactional Fluency is poor.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 4,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2946.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2946",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are generally relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A initiates a conversation about music, and Speaker B responds directly. Speaker A then follows up with a relevant question about a favorite artist. Speaker B answers this question and then returns to the initial topic, explaining their preference. Speaker A introduces her own preferences and then asks Speaker B about their preferred genre again, which is slightly repetitive but still follows the flow of a casual conversation. Speaker A apologizes for an interruption and then asks a relevant follow-up question about other genres. Speaker B provides a relevant answer. There are no major inaccuracies or illogical turns in the dialogue content itself.\n\n\n\nInteractional Fluency in this dialogue has significant issues. There are instances of prolonged overlap where one speaker interrupts the other and both speak simultaneously for more than 2 seconds (e.g., around 0:05 and again around 0:31). Additionally, there is a very long pause lasting approximately 10 seconds between Speaker A's apology at 0:32 and her next question at 0:42, which is well over the 5-second threshold for acceptable pauses. These issues disrupt the natural flow and smoothness of the interaction.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2936.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2936",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are relevant and appropriate to the conversation. Speaker A initiates the conversation, Speaker B responds, Speaker A shares news, Speaker B reacts positively and asks a follow-up question. Speaker A interrupts (apologizing for it) to ask a related question about the topic. Speaker B answers this question logically, providing context. Speaker A acknowledges the response. The dialogue progression is logical and the content of the responses aligns with typical conversation about running for office.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is significantly poor due to a large, unnatural audio gap between 0:11 and 0:21. Speaker B's utterance is cut off abruptly, followed by a 10-second silence before Speaker A resumes speaking. This long gap clearly exceeds the acceptable threshold for pauses (over 5s) and severely disrupts the natural flow and smoothness of the interaction. While there are no prolonged overlaps, this extended silence is a major fluency issue.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2006.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2006",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are mostly relevant, but the flow is sometimes interrupted by slight topic shifts. Speaker A's initial topic about potty training leads to a relevant discussion about the difficulty of newborns/young children with Speaker B sharing a similar experience. However, B's statement \"My daughter is too\" (referring to her age, presumably 2) after A talks about a newborn is a slight shift, though A connects it back to kids growing up fast. Speaker B then introduces the topic of listening to daycare stories, which is a less direct transition from the previous points. Speaker A follows up on this new topic, and the subsequent turns about the book \"Where the Wild Things Are\" are relevant to that specific sub-topic. While not completely incoherent, the transitions aren't always perfectly smooth or directly building on the *immediate* previous point in the latter half. However, there are no instances of completely irrelevant or nonsensical responses.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is generally good with smooth turn-taking and no noticeable overlaps exceeding 2 seconds. However, there is a significant pause between 0:34 and 0:41 (approximately 6-7 seconds) after Speaker A starts asking \"Oh, what's your favorite...\". This prolonged pause exceeds the allowed 5 seconds and negatively impacts the fluency of the dialogue. There is another shorter, acceptable pause around 0:19. The main issue is the extended silence in the middle section.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--493.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--493",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe speakers maintain a coherent conversation about cooking. Speaker A suggests cooking, and Speaker B raises relevant concerns about ingredients and lack of knowledge. Speaker A responds by simplifying the process and offering a concrete resource (a recipe) while acknowledging B's hesitation. The responses are logical, directly address the points raised by the previous speaker, and contribute to the flow of the discussion.\n\n\n\nThe interaction flows naturally. There are appropriate pauses between turns, but none exceed the 5-second threshold. There are no significant overlaps between speakers that impede understanding or feel unnatural. The turn-taking is smooth and allows the conversation to progress without interruptions or awkward silences.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--416.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--416",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant and logical. Speaker B directly answers Speaker A's question about birds and elaborates on their feelings and situation regarding pets. Speaker A offers a relevant suggestion. Speaker B then transitions smoothly by asking Speaker A about their bird preferences, which Speaker A answers with personal experience and opinions. Speaker B acknowledges and agrees with Speaker A's points about pigeons. The conversation flows naturally from one topic to the next, building upon previous turns.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are no noticeable long pauses (over 5 seconds) between turns. Turn-taking is smooth and prompt. While there might be brief overlaps, they are minor and sound natural for conversation, not prolonged or disruptive (no overlaps lasting 2 seconds or more). The rhythm of the dialogue feels natural and conversational.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--477.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--477",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are consistently relevant throughout the dialogue. Speaker B introduces the topic of not knowing how to cook in response to a general greeting, which, while slightly unexpected, immediately sets the context for the rest of the conversation. Speaker A picks up on this cue and offers to teach, leading to a logical progression where B asks for help, A gives instructions, B reacts and asks for the next step, and A continues providing guidance. Speaker A also corrects B's assumption about being a professional chef while maintaining focus on the cooking task. The dialogue flows naturally from one turn to the next, with each response directly addressing or building upon the previous turn's content. There are no instances of irrelevant replies or logical inconsistencies.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is smooth and natural, with minimal pauses between speakers. There are no prolonged silences exceeding 5 seconds or significant overlaps of 2 seconds or more. There is a brief overlap around 00:37 where B starts speaking just as A finishes, but this is very short and typical of natural conversation, well under the 2-second threshold. The pacing of the conversation feels natural and easy to follow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2213.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2213",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue generally flows well with speakers responding relevantly to the previous turn. Topics transition naturally from one movie (Interstellar) to a related movie (Blade Runner 2049) and then to another movie (Arrival) before moving to related TV dramas (The West Wing). However, there is a significant breakdown in logical consistency when Speaker A discusses The West Wing. Speaker A first recommends it (\"The West Wing is a really good one\") and describes it (\"It's very dramatic\"). Then, after Speaker B says they haven't heard of it, Speaker A says, \"That's funny, I've never seen that one either.\" This statement directly contradicts Speaker A's earlier remarks about the show and makes no logical sense in the context of the conversation. This is a major issue with response relevance and consistency.\n\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. Speakers take turns appropriately with smooth transitions between most turns. There are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds) or disruptive, long overlaps (over 2 seconds). There are a couple of very brief, acceptable overlaps (e.g., around 0:10 and 0:28), which feel natural in conversation. The pace is steady, and the conversation flows well from a timing perspective, despite the logical issue in the content.\n\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2342.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2342",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe speakers demonstrate good response relevance. Speaker A asks if Speaker B listens to music while exercising, and B responds affirmatively, mentioning listening to podcasts while running. A then asks about the type of content B listens to, which is a relevant follow-up. B provides content types (true crime, history). A then asks about how long B has been running, which is related to B's previous statement about running daily. B responds to this question, and A agrees with B's subsequent comment about the feeling after running. The responses are logical and follow the conversation's progression.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is significantly impacted by a long pause. While initial turn-taking is relatively smooth with only brief, acceptable overlaps (e.g., A apologising for interrupting), there is a substantial pause of approximately 10 seconds between 0:29 and 0:39. This pause is well over the 5-second threshold and disrupts the natural flow of the conversation. There are no prolonged overlaps. The main issue is the extended period of silence.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2071.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2071",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "thought\nThe user wants me to evaluate a two-person dialogue based on Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\n\nI need to listen to the provided audio and analyze:\n1. **Response Relevance**: Do the speakers' responses make sense in the context of the conversation? Are they logical and accurate?\n2. **Interactional Fluency**: Is the conversation smooth? Are there significant pauses (over 5s) or overlaps (over 2s)? Small pauses and brief overlaps are okay.\n\nAfter analyzing both aspects, I will provide a thinking process for each in the specified `` and `` tags. Finally, I will assign an `` of either 1 (Poor) or 2 (Excellent) based on the combined evaluation.\n\nLet's break down the dialogue and analyze:\n\n* **00:00 - 00:02**: Speaker A asks about \"Naam apps\".\n* **00:03 - 00:07**: Speaker B responds that they think they are cool and have heard of some, but haven't used them much. This is a relevant response.\n* **00:07 - 00:15**: Speaker A says one mentioned is good, expresses a desire to install them but doesn't know how, notes Speaker B seems knowledgeable, and asks for help. Relevant and logical follow-up.\n* **00:19 - 00:23**: Speaker B agrees to look things up and asks if Speaker A has any specific apps in mind. Relevant and helpful.\n* **00:23 - 00:25**: Speaker A asks if Speaker B knows what a live streaming app is. Relevant question based on the previous turn.\n* **00:26 - 00:32**: Speaker B says they think they do and gives an example (watching sports). This is a relevant attempt to clarify the term.\n* **00:32 - 00:32**: Speaker A confirms (\"Exactly\"). Relevant.\n* **00:44 - 00:47**: Speaker A clarifies their interest is more about watching \"jong shows\" on this app. Relevant clarification.\n* **00:51 - 00:53**: Speaker B responds positively (\"That sounds great\") and offers help. Relevant closing remark.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis**: The conversation flows logically. Speaker A asks about apps, Speaker B responds and offers help, Speaker A specifies a type of app, Speaker B tries to clarify, Speaker A confirms and refines the type of content. All responses are relevant and build upon the previous turn. No apparent inaccuracies or inconsistencies in the logic of the conversation.\n\n**Interactional Fluency Analysis**:\n* 00:00 - 00:03: Speaker A speaks, Speaker B starts immediately after (brief or no pause).\n* 00:07 - 00:07: Brief overlap as Speaker A starts while Speaker B is finishing. Acceptable.\n* 00:07 - 00:08: Speaker A speaks, Speaker B starts immediately after.\n* 00:16 - 00:19: Pause (approx 3 seconds). Acceptable.\n* 00:19 - 00:23: Speaker B speaks, Speaker A starts immediately after (brief or no pause).\n* 00:25 - 00:26: Speaker A speaks, Speaker B starts immediately after (brief or no pause).\n* 00:32 - 00:32: Speaker A speaks, Speaker B starts immediately after (brief or no pause).\n* 00:33 - 00:44: Long pause (approx 11 seconds). This is longer than the acceptable 5 seconds.\n* 00:44 - 00:48: Speaker A speaks, Speaker B starts immediately after (brief or no pause).\n* 00:48 - 00:51: Pause (approx 3 seconds). Acceptable.\n* 00:51 - 00:53: Speaker B speaks.\n\n**Fluency Conclusion**: There is one significant pause between 00:33 and 00:44 (approx 11 seconds), which exceeds the 5-second threshold. This impacts the overall smoothness of the interaction.\n\n**Overall Score**: Response relevance is good. However, the long pause significantly disrupts interactional fluency. According to the criteria, \"Significant issues in either Response Relevance or Interactional Fluency\" warrant a score of 1. The long pause is a significant issue in fluency.\n\nTherefore, the overall score should be 1.\nThe responses are relevant to the conversation flow. Speaker A initiates the topic of \"Naam apps\" and asks for help installing them. Speaker B responds by acknowledging they know about some and offering assistance. Speaker A then clarifies their interest in \"live streaming apps\" and watching specific content (\"jong shows\"). Speaker B confirms understanding and offers further help. There are no apparent inaccuracies or illogical turns in the dialogue.\n\n\n\nThe interaction exhibits several smooth turn transitions with minimal pauses or overlaps. However, there is a significant pause between Speaker A's confirmation at 00:32 and Speaker A's next statement at 00:44, lasting approximately 11 seconds. This exceeds the allowed 5-second threshold for pauses and disrupts the flow of the conversation.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2369.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2369",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is inconsistent. Speaker A starts by asking several specific questions about kitten care (what to buy, litter box frequency, feeding amount). Speaker B does not answer any of these initial questions directly. Speaker B asks an unrelated question (\"What kind of kittens do you want?\"). Speaker A then brings up concerns about health and when to get the kittens, and Speaker B's subsequent responses *are* relevant to these later points (suggesting a vet visit, advising on when to get them, discussing potential upset stomachs and preparation). However, the complete failure to address the user's primary initial questions about care essentials is a significant issue in terms of response relevance.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. There are no noticeable pauses that last longer than 5 seconds. There is a brief overlap around 0:25-0:28 where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A, but this overlap appears to be less than 2 seconds and doesn't significantly disrupt the flow. The turn-taking is otherwise smooth and natural.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--543.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--543",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe speakers maintain good response relevance throughout the dialogue. Speaker A introduces the topic of starting an herb garden and asks for suggestions. Speaker B asks a relevant clarifying question about where the garden will be located. Although B briefly introduces a side topic about \"red discovered plants,\" A acknowledges this and asks a relevant follow-up question relating it back to their own small urban garden context. B responds to this question directly. B then attempts to steer the conversation back to herbs, although the phrasing at 00:23-00:27 is slightly awkward (\"Sleep, of which you said you wanted to grow rosemary, thyme, and parsley\"), seemingly attributing specific herbs to A that A hadn't mentioned yet. A then introduces basil, which is relevant to the herb garden topic, and B provides a relevant positive response. Finally, B brings back the earlier relevant point about the specific garden area. Despite the slight awkwardness and incorrect attribution of herbs by B at one point, the conversation stays on topic and speakers respond to each other's points, demonstrating overall good response relevance.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Speakers take turns smoothly with no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds). There is one instance where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B (\"Sorry to cut in\"), but this is a brief and polite interruption common in natural conversation and not a prolonged overlap (under 2 seconds). There are no other noticeable long overlaps or hesitations that disrupt the flow significantly. The pacing feels natural for a conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2791.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2791",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are generally relevant and follow a logical flow. Speaker B appropriately responds to Speaker A's greeting and statement about starting school. Speaker B then interrupts Speaker A's question but immediately asks a relevant question about study focus. Speaker A answers this question and elaborates on their plans (studying business, starting a business), which is a direct response to the topic. Speaker B then responds briefly to Speaker A's comment about traveling before introducing a new, but related, topic about business opportunities. The content of the dialogue is coherent.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is poor due to significant issues with turn-taking and pausing. There is a significant overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B from approximately 00:26 to 00:27, where both speakers are talking simultaneously. More importantly, there is a prolonged pause of about 9 seconds between 00:28 and 00:37, which is well over the 5-second limit specified as harmful. While a brief pause exists between 00:13 and 00:15 (around 2 seconds) which is acceptable, the long pause and the overlaps detract significantly from the naturalness and smoothness of the interaction.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2241.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2241",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A asks for an opinion on studio monitors, and Speaker B provides a positive assessment, explaining why they are good (accurate sound reproduction, flat frequency response). Speaker A then asks for clarification on \"reproducing sound,\" which Speaker B provides by elaborating on flat frequency response and the intention of hearing audio as intended. Speaker A acknowledges this understanding (\"That makes sense\") and then naturally transitions to asking for recommendations, which is a logical next step when considering purchasing the item being discussed. Speaker B offers relevant advice based on budget and suggests specific popular brands. The conversation stays focused on studio monitors throughout, with each speaker's turn directly relating to the previous one and contributing to the discussion.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency in this dialogue is generally good, with smooth turn-taking and no significant overlaps exceeding 2 seconds. Speaker A does have a brief overlap at 00:07 (\"Sorry to jump in\"), which is common in natural conversation and appropriately managed. Similarly, Speaker A has a brief overlap at 00:29 (\"That makes sense\"). However, there is a prolonged pause between 00:29 and 00:40 (approximately 11 seconds). This pause is longer than the acceptable limit of 5 seconds and significantly disrupts the flow and naturalness of the interaction.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2111.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2111",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe initial turns in the dialogue show good response relevance. Speaker A introduces the topic of a new monitor, Speaker B asks a relevant question about its potential use (recording), and Speaker A clarifies the actual use (productivity work). However, Speaker B's final question, \"So what do you do to make money?\", is completely irrelevant to the preceding conversation about the monitor or its use. This abrupt topic shift indicates a significant lack of relevance in the final turn, making the overall response relevance poor.\n\n\n\nThe interaction starts with good turn-taking. There is a very brief overlap around 0:06, which is acceptable. However, there is a prolonged pause between Speaker B's question (\"What are you recording?\") at 0:06 and Speaker A's response (\"Oh, I am not actually using it for recording...\") at 0:16. This pause is approximately 9 seconds long, which significantly exceeds the 5-second threshold defined as harmful to interactional fluency. This constitutes a major issue in the fluency of the dialogue.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2283.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2283",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is excellent. Both speakers consistently respond directly to the previous speaker's statements or questions, maintaining a clear and logical flow of conversation. The initial greeting is followed by a relevant question, which leads to Speaker A mentioning getting a cat. Speaker B's reaction and subsequent question about the cat are relevant, and Speaker A's explanation addresses this. The conversation then naturally progresses to discussing potential reasons for the cat's anxiety, Speaker B sharing a related personal experience with a cat, Speaker A asking a relevant follow-up question about that cat, and finally touching on a dog adopted by Speaker B's mom. All turns contribute meaningfully to the topic and follow a coherent path. There are no irrelevant responses or logical inconsistencies.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is poor due to a significant prolonged pause. While turn-taking is generally smooth for most of the conversation, there is a noticeable pause lasting approximately 9 seconds between Speaker A mentioning the cat being skittish around 00:16 and Speaker B responding with \"It's interesting...\" around 00:25. This pause is well over the 5-second limit defined as harmful in the instructions. There is a brief overlap at 00:15-00:16 (\"Anxious\") but it is short and acceptable. The major pause disrupts the flow and makes the interaction feel unnatural.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2777.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2777",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe response relevance is generally good. Speaker B's initial responses about the garden and favorite crop are direct answers to Speaker A's questions. Speaker A's comment about tomatoes being hard to grow is relevant to Speaker B's mention of tomatoes. Speaker B then shifts the topic slightly by asking about pests, which is related to gardening and the previous mention of tomatoes. Speaker A's final response addresses Speaker B's question about pest control strategies. All turns maintain relevance to the conversation topic.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is negatively impacted by an interruption. At 0:14, Speaker B interrupts Speaker A mid-sentence (\"especially...\") to introduce a new question (\"Speaking of tomatoes, do you have any tips...\"). This disrupts the flow of the conversation. While the pause after Speaker B's question (around 0:28 to 0:31) is not excessively long (under 5 seconds), coupled with the interruption, it makes the turn-taking feel less smooth and natural. The interruption is the primary issue affecting fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--585.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--585",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nSpeaker A initiates the conversation about liking the new apartment. Speaker B responds to this initially before introducing the topic of cooking. Speaker A follows up on the cooking topic, but Speaker B interrupts and shifts abruptly to kitchen supplies. Speaker A addresses the kitchen supplies but immediately tries to bring the conversation back to what Speaker B cooked. Speaker B then answers the original question about pasta and transitions to wanting pizza. Speaker A responds to the pizza idea and introduces the topic of making pizza. Speaker B responds to this and asks why A is asking, leading to A explaining and offering tips. The responses are generally relevant to the immediate or recent turns, although Speaker B initiates one abrupt topic shift (to kitchen supplies) by interrupting Speaker A. Speaker A handles this by redirecting the conversation back. The overall flow follows a logical thread (apartment -> cooking -> pasta -> kitchen supplies detour -> back to pasta -> wanting pizza -> making pizza -> tips). While not perfectly smooth due to the interruption and detour, the responses are coherent and build upon the previous turns effectively most of the time. I do not see \"significant issues\" in relevance as defined by the scoring criteria.\n\n\n\nThe interaction features clear turn-taking with no prolonged pauses exceeding 5 seconds. There are two instances where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A (around 00:07 and 00:26). These interruptions result in brief overlaps. According to the note in the instructions, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in audio are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping audio are harmful.\" The overlaps in this dialogue appear to be brief, likely under the 2-second threshold for being considered harmful or a \"significant issue\". Therefore, based on the criteria provided, the interactional fluency is appropriate and natural, avoiding significant issues like long pauses or prolonged overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--561.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--561",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in this dialogue are consistently relevant and logical. Speaker A initiates the conversation and asks how B is doing. Speaker B responds directly and introduces a topic they are thinking about (cooking). Speaker A then shares their experience and offers advice based on B's topic. Speaker B asks a follow-up question related to their concern about cooking (making mistakes), and Speaker A addresses this directly. Speaker A then transitions to asking about B's cooking preferences, and B answers, leading to a discussion about specific cuisines and dishes. Each turn builds upon the previous one, demonstrating a clear understanding and engagement with the conversation's flow. There are no instances of irrelevant replies or significant logical inconsistencies.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is natural and smooth. Turn-taking is generally prompt, with responses following questions or statements quickly. There are no prolonged pauses that disrupt the flow (no pauses appearing to be 5 seconds or longer). There are a couple of brief overlaps, such as when Speaker B says \"Sorry to jump in\" at 0:27 and when Speaker A responds enthusiastically about Vietnamese cuisine at 0:53, and a very brief acknowledgment from B at 0:45. However, these overlaps are short (less than 2 seconds) and characteristic of natural, engaged conversation rather than disruptive interruptions. Overall, the rhythm of the conversation feels very natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2005.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2005",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe initial responses between speakers A and B regarding hair braiding are relevant and logically consistent, building on each other (asking about knowledge, asking how B got into it, B explaining). However, at 0:30, after a long pause, speaker B abruptly asks \"do you mind if I take a picture?\", which is completely unrelated to the previous topic of hair braiding. Speaker A responds relevantly to this new topic (\"Sure. But I won't upload it anywhere\"). Then, at 0:39, speaker B abruptly switches back to the original topic (\"Do you like hair braiding?\"), making the middle part of the dialogue feel disjointed and lacking logical flow or relevance to the conversation thread. The word \"system\" at the start of B's unrelated turn is also peculiar. This significant break in topic consistency indicates issues with response relevance.\n\n\n\nThe turn-taking is generally smooth in the beginning and end of the dialogue, with acceptable small pauses and brief overlaps. However, there is a prolonged pause between 0:21 and 0:30, lasting approximately 9 seconds. This exceeds the acceptable limit of 5 seconds and represents a significant interruption to the flow and naturalness of the conversation. There are no overlaps lasting 2 seconds or more. The long pause alone is a significant issue impacting interactional fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--643.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--643",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant and logical. Speaker A asks about cooking, Speaker B responds directly (\"Not really\"). Speaker A shifts to baking, Speaker B responds positively. Speaker A asks what B likes to cook, and Speaker B, stating they've never cooked, provides a relevant response explaining their lack of experience. Speaker A then offers to teach, which is a logical follow-up to B's response. Speaker B expresses interest and asks A to complete their interrupted thought, showing active engagement and relevance. Speaker A finishes the thought, providing a specific example. The conversation flows naturally with each turn building appropriately on the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is smooth throughout the dialogue, with no significant pauses over 5 seconds. There are very brief overlaps (less than 2 seconds) where Speaker B speaks slightly over Speaker A, but these are natural and do not disrupt the flow of the conversation. For example, Speaker B's brief overlap at 0:09-0:10 and again at 0:21-0:22 are short and typical of natural dialogue, with Speaker B effectively managing the latter overlap by asking Speaker A to finish their sentence. There are no prolonged overlaps or awkward silences.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2895.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2895",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are consistently relevant to the topic being discussed. Speaker A talks about a favorite dish, Speaker B asks about it, Speaker A responds, Speaker B shares their preference (cooking), Speaker A asks about Speaker B's cooking, Speaker B answers, and Speaker A provides feedback and asks a follow-up question. The dialogue progresses logically with each turn building on the previous one. There are no instances of irrelevant or inconsistent responses.\n\n\n\nThe interaction exhibits issues with fluency due to a prolonged pause. While turn-taking is generally smooth with short gaps between most turns, there is a significant pause lasting approximately 9-10 seconds between Speaker A saying \"That sounds delicious\" (0:32) and then asking their follow-up question (0:43). This pause is well over the 5-second threshold mentioned in the criteria and negatively impacts the natural flow and smoothness of the interaction. There are no significant overlaps detected.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2728.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2728",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nSpeaker B's responses are consistently relevant and logical. When asked about preferred clothes, B provides specific types (button-downs, blazers, trousers). When asked if they ever mix it up, B directly answers (\"Sometimes, but I really prefer...\") and elaborates on their preference before adding a related detail about accessories. The content flows logically and directly addresses the questions asked.\n\n\n\nThe interaction exhibits a significant overlap between Speaker B's first turn (ending around 00:10) and Speaker A's second turn (starting around 00:07). Speaker A begins their question (\"Do you ever mix it up...\") while Speaker B is still finishing their previous sentence (\"...trousers that go with them.\"). This overlap lasts for approximately 3-4 seconds, which is longer than a brief or small overlap and falls into the category of \"prolonged overlapping audio\" that the criteria states is harmful and should be avoided for 2 seconds or more. This significantly disrupts the natural flow of the conversation. There are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds).\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2763.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2763",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue shows generally good response relevance. Speakers respond directly to questions or statements made by the other speaker, building on previous points (e.g., discussing the NASA rover, then astrobiology, then microbes). Speaker A clarifies Speaker B's question about microbes before answering, demonstrating attention to detail. However, at 1:03, Speaker A abruptly shifts the topic from the possibility of microbes on Mars to the link between the flu and the common cold. While Speaker B responds appropriately to this new topic, the transition feels sudden and less logically connected to the preceding conversation thread. Despite this one abrupt shift, the majority of turns are relevant and flow logically from the preceding speaker's contribution. This slight dip doesn't constitute a *significant* issue in relevance overall, but it's not perfectly seamless.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is a significant issue in this dialogue primarily due to prolonged pauses. There is a very long pause lasting approximately 9 seconds between 0:23 and 0:32, which far exceeds the acceptable limit of 5 seconds. There is another pause of approximately 3 seconds between 0:39 and 0:42. While there is a brief overlap at 0:22 (\"Sorry to cut...\"), this is short and acceptable according to the criteria. The presence of the very long pause represents a significant disruption to the natural flow and smoothness of the conversation.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--483.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--483",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe speakers maintain a highly relevant and coherent conversation throughout the dialogue. Speaker A initiates with a general question about modern art. Speaker B responds by clarifying and relating it to a specific place (The Met), which is relevant to the topic. Speaker A then follows up by asking about a favorite artist, maintaining the focus on modern art and linking back to museums. Speaker B names Mark Rothko and provides a reason. Speaker A's subsequent interjection about the Rothko exhibition coming up at The Met is highly relevant, directly connecting to the artist B just mentioned and the place B previously brought up. Speaker B responds appropriately to this information, expresses interest, and then smoothly returns to their previous point about Rothko's work. Speaker A then agrees and elaborates on B's point about Rothko's painting style before asking another relevant question about technique. The conversation flows logically, with each turn building upon the previous ones. All responses are accurate within the context of the conversation and logically consistent.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no significant pauses exceeding 5 seconds between turns. While there is a brief overlap at the beginning of Speaker A's turn at 00:18 (\"Sorry to jump in\"), this overlap is short (less than 2 seconds) and characteristic of natural, engaged conversation, particularly as Speaker A immediately acknowledges the interruption. The turn-taking is otherwise smooth and responsive. Speaker B picks up immediately after A's interjection, and A responds promptly to B's points about Rothko's work.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 3,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2011.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2011",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are consistently relevant to the conversation. Speaker A expresses an opinion, Speaker B asks for clarification or reacts to it, and Speaker A elaborates or introduces a related point. The dialogue progresses logically from discussing cotton candy to discussing bread and a related office anecdote. There are no instances of off-topic or nonsensical responses. The content flows well between speakers.\n\n\n\nThere are instances of significant overlap where speakers interrupt each other. Specifically, around the 0:09 mark, Speaker B interrupts Speaker A with an overlap lasting approximately 3 seconds. While there are minor overlaps and pauses elsewhere, this particular overlap exceeds the threshold of 2 seconds and disrupts the smooth flow of the conversation. This constitutes a significant issue in interactional fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--630.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--630",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are highly relevant throughout the dialogue. Speaker B asks relevant clarifying questions about John Keats after Speaker A introduces him. Speaker A provides accurate and relevant information about Keats. Speaker A then transitions to a relevant question about Speaker B's reading preferences, and Speaker B provides a relevant answer listing authors they enjoy. Speaker A follows up with a relevant comment and question about one of the authors mentioned by Speaker B. The conversation flows logically from one turn to the next, with each response building on the previous statement.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. Turn-taking is generally smooth. There are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds). There are a couple of very brief overlaps (e.g., around 0:08 and 0:26) where one speaker starts talking just as the other is finishing a phrase, but these are short and natural, well under the 2-second threshold mentioned as harmful. The flow feels natural and conversational despite these minor overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--414.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--414",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant to the ongoing conversation about dinner and making steak. Speaker A initiates by asking about the menu, and Speaker B responds with a specific suggestion (steak). Subsequent turns discuss ingredients (extra ones, vegetables, potatoes) and the process of cooking steak (difficulty, recipes). Although there are slight shifts and interruptions, each turn clearly relates back to the main topic or a preceding turn. The responses are logically consistent within the context of planning a meal.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is generally good, with no long pauses exceeding 5 seconds. There are several instances of overlap, particularly Speaker A interrupting Speaker B. However, these overlaps are relatively brief (less than 2 seconds each) and do not significantly impede the flow of the conversation or make it difficult to understand either speaker. Turn-taking is mostly immediate after a speaker finishes their thought, except for the instances of overlap.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--497.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--497",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Speaker A and Speaker B engage in a natural conversation, starting with greetings and moving into a specific topic (gardening). Speaker B clearly states their problem with watering squash. Speaker A provides a relevant suggestion (drip irrigation). Speaker B acknowledges this and offers an alternative relevant solution (pots and grow lamp). Speaker A confirms the alternative solution is a good point and explains why it's beneficial in the context of B's problem. All responses are accurate, logically consistent, and build upon the previous turn, contributing meaningfully to the conversation's flow and topic development.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth throughout the dialogue with no awkward long pauses (over 5 seconds). There is one brief overlap at 00:27 where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B, but it is very short (less than 2 seconds) and immediately followed by Speaker A using \"Sorry to jump in,\" which is a natural conversational marker for interrupting. This overlap is minor and does not disrupt the overall flow. The rest of the turns transition smoothly and promptly.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2001.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2001",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue begins with a standard greeting and response, which is relevant. Speaker A then introduces their favorite historical figure, and Speaker B asks a relevant clarifying question (\"Could you tell me more about why she's your favorite?\"). Speaker A provides a relevant explanation. However, Speaker A then abruptly changes the topic by asking if Speaker B has family members from the Pacific region (00:24). While Speaker A attempts to link this to the previous discussion by stating that history can sometimes connect with personal lives (00:28), the connection is weak and the topic shift is not smooth or logically flowing from the preceding conversation about a specific historical figure. Speaker B responds directly to the question and then asks why A asked, which is a relevant query given the sudden shift. Speaker A reiterates the weak link. Due to the significant and weakly justified topic change initiated by Speaker A, there is a notable issue in Response Relevance and logical consistency.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. Turn-taking is smooth, with no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds). There is a brief overlap at 00:09 when Speaker B interjects, but it is very short (less than 2 seconds) and handled naturally as Speaker B waits for A to finish before asking their question. The pacing feels appropriate for a casual conversation.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 4,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2202.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2202",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is consistently appropriate. Both speakers respond directly to each other's statements and questions, building on the conversation about a trip, the Louvre, and the Japanese art exhibit. Speaker A's interjection about contemporary art is relevant to Speaker B's topic, and the subsequent discussion about visiting Paris and the exhibit's duration follows logically from the initial subject. There are no instances of irrelevant responses or misunderstandings of the topic.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency has issues. While some turns are smooth and the overlaps are brief and natural (like A's \"Sorry to jump in\"), there is a significant prolonged gap between 0:44 and 0:53 (approximately 9 seconds) between Speaker A's fragmented start and their completion of the sentence and follow-up question. This long silence disrupts the natural flow and smoothness of the turn-taking, indicating a problem with fluency according to the criteria of avoiding pauses over 5 seconds.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2321.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2321",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A initiates the conversation about hobbies, and Speaker B responds appropriately. Speaker A then asks follow-up questions related to basketball based on B's response. Speaker B answers these questions and offers relevant advice when asked. The conversation flows naturally from one topic to the next, building upon the previous turn. There are no instances of off-topic responses or logical inconsistencies.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is poor due to a significant prolonged pause between 0:25 and 0:35, which lasts approximately 10 seconds. This lengthy pause disrupts the natural flow of the conversation. While there is a brief overlap at 0:24 (\"Practicing right?\"), which is acceptable as it is short and related, the subsequent long pause significantly harms the fluency. The turn-taking is otherwise relatively smooth, but the extensive pause is a major issue according to the criteria (avoiding pauses over 5s).\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2385.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2385",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "1. (Poor): Significant issues in either **Response Relevance ** or **Interactional Fluency. **\n\n`2` (Excellent): Both **Response Relevance ** and **Interactional Fluency ** are consistently appropriate and natural.\n\n## Evaluation Output Format:\n\nStrictly follow this template:\n\n\n\n[Analysing Response Relevance and giving reasons for scoring...]\n\n\n\n\n\n[Analysing Interactional Fluency and giving reasons for scoring.]\n\n\n\nX\n\n5s).\n * B: \"...having enough space is key. Maybe we could also look for a place with a kitchen so we can cook some meals ourselves.\" (0:33 - 0:39)\n * Pause between B (0:39) and A (0:43) - Approx 4 seconds. Acceptable.\n * A: \"That's a great idea. It would save us some money too. Let's start by checking out some places in the downtown area.\" (0:43 - 0:50)\n * The main fluency issue is the long 10-second pause following B's initial interjection \"Absolutely\" at 0:23. This significantly disrupts the flow.\n\n3. **Determine Overall Score:**\n * Response Relevance: Good. The dialogue makes sense, and responses are relevant and contribute to the goal (finding a place).\n * Interactional Fluency: Poor. There is a very long pause (10 seconds) after speaker B's aborted interjection at 0:23, which is a significant issue according to the criteria (avoiding pauses over 5s).\n * Since there is a significant issue in Interactional Fluency, the overall score should be 1 (Poor).\n\n4. **Format the Output:** Follow the template precisely.\nThe dialogue shows good response relevance. Speaker B's initial interruption asking about the area is a relevant clarification before searching for a specific type of place (A-frame). Speaker A acknowledges this point and incorporates it into the discussion, adding another relevant criterion (space). Speaker B then builds on the space requirement and introduces a new relevant criterion (kitchen). The conversation logically progresses towards setting criteria for finding a place. All turns are on-topic and contribute to the shared goal.\n\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is significantly impacted by a long pause. Speaker B briefly interrupts Speaker A at 0:23 with \"Absolutely,\" but then there is a prolonged silence (approximately 10 seconds) before Speaker B continues their turn at 0:33. This long pause significantly disrupts the flow of the conversation and exceeds the 5-second threshold for acceptable pauses. There are brief overlaps and other pauses, but none are as disruptive as this extended silence.\n\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 4,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--504.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--504",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant. Speaker A asks questions about US Presidents, and Speaker B provides answers. When Speaker B makes a factual error about Geraldine Ferraro, Speaker A politely corrects them, which is appropriate and maintains relevance. The conversation then shifts to Speaker B's aspiration to be president and their goals, with Speaker A asking follow-up questions. All turns build logically on the previous ones.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. The turn-taking is mostly smooth. There are no pauses exceeding 5 seconds. There is a brief overlap at the 00:10 mark where Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is finishing, but it is less than 2 seconds. Similarly, Speaker A interrupts Speaker B at the 00:28 mark, leading to a brief overlap, but it is also less than 2 seconds and is framed as a request for clarification (\"Hold on before you finish...\"). These brief overlaps are within the acceptable range and do not significantly disrupt the flow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2755.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2755",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are generally relevant and follow a logical flow. The conversation starts with Speaker A inquiring about Speaker B's profession, moves to the challenges of the job (handling last-minute bookings), and then shifts to a potential travel destination (Jamaica) and recommendations there. Speaker B's answers are direct and related to Speaker A's questions or comments. There are no apparent inaccuracies or inconsistencies in the content of the responses. The shifts in topic feel relatively natural for an informal conversation.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency has a significant issue. While turn-taking is mostly smooth with only a minor, acceptable overlap at 0:10-0:11, there is a very long pause between 0:38 and 0:49. This pause is much longer than the acceptable 5 seconds and disrupts the natural flow and rhythm of the conversation. There are no other notable long pauses or significant overlaps.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2824.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2824",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A expresses a concern, and Speaker B offers relevant advice (consulting a doctor, then specifically a dermatologist when the first advice didn't fully satisfy Speaker A). Speaker B's subsequent responses address Speaker A's concerns about the previous doctor's advice and the perceived complexity of seeing a specialist, providing rationale and reassurance. The conversation follows a clear and logical progression related to the initial problem presented by Speaker A.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is significantly impacted by a notable overlap between Speaker A's first turn ending around 00:06 and Speaker B's response starting at the same time. This overlap is more than a brief interjection and disrupts the smooth flow of the conversation. While the pauses between other turns seem acceptable, this specific overlap constitutes a significant issue in turn-taking smoothness according to the scoring criteria.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 6,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2848.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2848",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are relevant and logically consistent. The speakers follow up on each other's points about fitness activities and goals. Speaker A correctly recalls speaker B's passion for photography, and then makes a guess about the *actual* topic of yoga, which Speaker A elaborates on. Speaker B's responses are appropriate follow-ups or reactions to Speaker A's statements and questions. There are no instances where a response is off-topic or illogical within the conversation flow.\n\n\n\nThere is a significant issue with interactional fluency. At the 00:11 mark, Speaker B interrupts Speaker A, resulting in a prolonged overlap that lasts for several seconds (approximately from 00:11 to 00:14). This is not a brief overlap and disrupts the turn-taking, impacting the smoothness of the interaction. Aside from this major interruption, other turns seem relatively smooth, with no pauses exceeding 5 seconds. However, the single significant overlap is a major fluency issue.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2976.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2976",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe response relevance has significant issues. Speaker A initially misunderstands Speaker B's statement \"planning to start knitting soon,\" responding with \"What's basket making?\". This shows a lack of understanding or mishearing of the previous turn. While Speaker B attempts to connect this back to making a basket from yarn (which they *are* knitting), the initial response is not relevant to what was said. Subsequent turns become more relevant as they clarify the activity (knitting a basket) and discuss the technique (using only purl stitches). However, the initial lack of relevance is a significant issue.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency has significant issues. There is a prolonged pause of approximately 8 seconds between Speaker A's comment at 0:28 and Speaker B completing their response at 0:41 (after starting their turn). This pause is well over the 5-second threshold specified as harmful, disrupting the natural flow of the conversation. There are also minor overlaps, but the long pause is the primary fluency issue.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2138.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2138",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue exhibits good response relevance throughout. Speakers build upon each other's points, moving from general greetings to a shared interest in cooking, discussing challenges (people not liking their food), identifying favorite dishes (pasta), and exploring related aspects like ingredients and cost. Speaker A's clarifying question about why people don't like the food is directly relevant to Speaker B's previous statement. Speaker B answers and then smoothly returns to the topic of favorite foods. Speaker A's follow-up questions and comments about pasta are also relevant. Speaker B's transition \"Speaking of money\" links back to Speaker A's comment about not having to pay a lot, maintaining relevance. Speaker A's final response about ingredients and their mom's cooking is relevant to Speaker B's question. There is a slight deviation when Speaker B mentions pesto dishes after being asked about tagliatelle, but it's minor and within the overall cooking topic. Overall, the responses are logically consistent and relevant.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is mostly smooth with natural turn-taking. Brief pauses and minor overlaps occur but do not significantly disrupt the flow. However, there is a prolonged pause between 0:55 and 1:05, lasting approximately 10 seconds. This exceeds the 5-second threshold for acceptable pauses and constitutes a significant break in the conversational flow, negatively impacting fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2724.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2724",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A presents a problem (clothes smelling like mildew, implying a washing issue). Speaker B offers relevant solutions (buy a new machine, use a laundromat). Speaker A responds to these suggestions by explaining their situation (tired of hand washing) and weighing the proposed solutions, ultimately deciding the new machine is the best approach. The conversation flows naturally from problem description to potential solutions and evaluation of those solutions.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is significantly impacted by prolonged pauses. There is a pause of approximately 10 seconds between Speaker A's turn ending at 00:12 and Speaker B's turn starting at 00:22. This exceeds the acceptable limit of 5 seconds and disrupts the natural flow of conversation. There is another pause of about 4 seconds between Speaker B's turn ending at 00:26 and Speaker A's turn starting at 00:30, which is also on the longer side. There are no significant overlaps detected. The presence of these long pauses indicates issues with the smoothness of turn-taking.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--460.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--460",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is excellent. Speaker B's first question directly follows Speaker A's introduction of the topic (depression, helpful information), asking for personal strategies for coping, specifically in a professional setting. Speaker A's response provides a strategy and refers to the source of information mentioned earlier (\"the article\"). Speaker B's second question is a direct follow-up to A mentioning the article, asking for details about its content. Each turn builds logically on the previous one, demonstrating high relevance.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is generally good, although there are brief interruptions by Speaker B. Both interruptions (at approx 00:07 and 00:24) involve Speaker B speaking over Speaker A while A is still mid-utterance or just finishing. However, these overlaps are short, lasting only about 1 second each, which falls below the threshold of \"2 seconds or more\" defined as harmful. There are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds). While the interruptions reduce perfect smoothness, they do not significantly impede the flow or understanding of the conversation according to the specified criteria. The interaction is functional and coherent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--557.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--557",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe speakers maintain relevance throughout the dialogue. Speaker A introduces the topic of kitchen renovation, Speaker B asks for clarification on desired changes, Speaker A brings up practical considerations (cost, disruption), and Speaker B explains their reasons for wanting changes. Each response builds upon the previous turn and stays on the core topic of kitchen renovation. The dialogue flows logically despite a brief, acknowledged interruption.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. Turn-taking is smooth, with no significant pauses exceeding 5 seconds. There is one brief, explicit interruption by Speaker A (\"Sorry to interrupt\") at 00:06, which is short and doesn't cause a prolonged overlap. There are no other noticeable prolonged overlaps. The pace and transitions feel natural for a conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--632.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--632",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are generally relevant and follow the conversation flow. Speaker A asks about viewing preferences, Speaker B responds with a specific show, Speaker A indicates being a fan and asks a related question about the books, and Speaker B responds and follows up. There is a minor point of potential confusion in the final turn, where Speaker A says, \"I am surprised you don't like it. It gets much better,\" after Speaker B had just stated they thought the first book was \"captivating.\" This suggests a slight misinterpretation or a confusing reference (is \"it\" the book or the show getting better?), which impacts logical consistency slightly, but not enough to disrupt the conversation's main topic. Overall, the relevance is good despite this minor point.\n\n\n\nThe interaction exhibits excellent fluency. Turn-taking is smooth and natural, with no noticeable long pauses (over 5s) or significant overlaps (over 2s). The conversation flows well from one speaker to the next without awkward silences or interruptions.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2785.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2785",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A initiates the conversation about travel and holiday celebrations, asking Speaker B about their experiences. Speaker B responds by sharing a recent travel experience, which is relevant to the topic of travel, even though it wasn't about holidays. Speaker A follows up on Speaker B's trip, and Speaker B confirms they enjoyed it and are planning another trip. Speaker A then asks about the next destination. Speaker B's response, while shifting the focus slightly from international travel to domestic travel for a specific purpose (live music in a big city), is a direct and logical follow-up to the idea of planning a \"next trip\". Speaker A's final response suggesting a place for live music and asking about B's preference for it is also relevant to B's expressed interest. The conversation flows naturally from topic to topic based on the speakers' inputs.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is generally smooth in terms of turn-taking without significant overlaps. However, there is a notable pause between Speaker A's question \"Which country are you thinking of visiting next?\" around 0:29 and Speaker B's response starting around 0:40. This pause is approximately 10 seconds long, which exceeds the allowed 5-second limit. This prolonged pause disrupts the flow and smoothness of the interaction, indicating a significant issue with interactional fluency according to the provided criteria. There is a shorter pause between Speaker B's last sentence and Speaker A's response (~3 seconds), which is acceptable.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--564.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--564",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are largely relevant and logical. Speaker A initiates the conversation seeking travel tips for the Amazon. Speaker B asks for clarification, and Speaker A provides an incorrect detail about seeing Orcas in the Amazon. Speaker B correctly identifies this factual error and questions it, which is a highly relevant and necessary response. Speaker A acknowledges the error and transitions to discussing other threats in the Amazon (predators, humans). This transition, while a bit abrupt, keeps the conversation relevant to the topic of risks in the Amazon. Speaker B's follow-up question about human threats and Speaker A's subsequent explanation are also relevant and logically connected. The core interaction handles the factual inconsistency well, making the responses appropriate within the conversational context.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. Turn-taking is smooth with no noticeable long pauses over 5 seconds or prolonged overlaps over 2 seconds. The rhythm feels natural for a spoken dialogue.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2265.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2265",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe response relevance is excellent. Speaker A introduces the topic of her paleo eating plan. Speaker B asks a direct and relevant question asking for a definition of the paleo diet. Speaker A provides a clear explanation, which Speaker B then attempts to confirm or summarize with another relevant question. Speaker A confirms and elaborates further. All turns are on-topic and contribute logically to the conversation about the paleo diet.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is poor due to a significant pause. While the initial turn-taking is smooth (B responds quickly to A, A responds reasonably quickly to B), there is a noticeable and prolonged pause between Speaker B starting his question at 0:21 (\"Oh, like eating...\") and finishing it at 0:31 (\"...more natural and unprocessed foods?\"). This pause is approximately 8 seconds long, which exceeds the 5-second threshold mentioned in the criteria as harmful. Speaker B also slightly overlaps Speaker A at 0:21, but this is brief and acceptable. The primary issue is the long pause.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2214.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2214",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are relevant and follow the flow of the conversation. Speaker A introduces the topic of reading Macbeth and speculates about Shakespeare's process. Speaker B responds by relating it to their knowledge of psychology and writers, which is a relevant expansion of the topic. Speaker A asks a relevant follow-up question, and Speaker B answers it while broadening the scope slightly to writers in general, which is still logically connected. The speakers build upon each other's points, demonstrating good response relevance.\n\n\n\nThe turn-taking is mostly smooth with only very brief, natural-sounding overlaps. However, there is a significant pause lasting approximately 10 seconds between Speaker A's utterance at 0:35 and Speaker A's next utterance at 0:45. This prolonged pause (well over the 5-second threshold) indicates a significant issue with interactional fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--697.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--697",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue shows excellent response relevance. Speaker B's turns directly address or build upon what Speaker A said (e.g., confirming enjoyment of PB&J, asking about peanut butter type, asking about additions like honey or banana slices, asking about jelly). Speaker A also provides relevant responses to B's questions (e.g., confirming use of chunky, mentioning banana slices, discussing jelly's impact). The conversation maintains a logical flow centered around the topic of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and personal preferences regarding them.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Speakers take turns promptly with minimal pauses between contributions. There is one very brief overlap at 0:26 where Speaker B starts speaking just as Speaker A finishes their sentence, but this is a very short overlap (much less than the 2s threshold) and feels natural in a casual conversation, not disruptive. There are no prolonged pauses exceeding 5 seconds. The rhythm of the conversation is smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--495.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--495",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are generally relevant and logical. Speaker A initiates by asking about workleisure clothes for the gym, and Speaker B responds by asking about their intended use. Speaker A clarifies they only go to the gym on weekends and need comfortable, sweat-wicking clothes. Speaker B asks if they would wear them every time, which is a slightly awkward phrasing given A hasn't bought them yet, but A's response clarifies their intention for use *when* they go to the gym. The conversation proceeds logically from discussing the potential purchase to discussing buying them, their availability (\"great deal\"), fit, and size. The dialogue maintains focus on the topic of buying these clothes for the gym. There are no significant irrelevancies or logical inconsistencies, although the exchange at 0:14-0:21 is slightly stilted.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. Turn-taking is smooth throughout the dialogue, with minimal pauses between turns. There is one very brief overlap at 0:31 where Speaker B starts speaking just as Speaker A finishes, which is natural in conversation and well under the 2-second threshold. There are no noticeable pauses exceeding 5 seconds. The rhythm of the conversation feels natural and conversational up until the abrupt end of the audio.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2372.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2372",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are highly relevant and contribute meaningfully to the conversation about literature and authors. Speaker A initiates the topic and shares their appreciation. Speaker B engages with A's points. Speaker A makes one factual error regarding the author of \"Dead Souls,\" but Speaker B politely and accurately corrects them. Speaker A acknowledges the mistake and self-corrects, demonstrating good conversational repair. The dialogue then continues smoothly, discussing Dostoevsky's themes and transitioning to favorite authors. The content is relevant, accurate (after the correction), and logically flows.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is generally good with smooth turn-taking for most of the dialogue. There is one brief overlap where Speaker B interrupts to correct Speaker A, which is handled politely (\"Oh, sorry to jump in...\") and is functionally appropriate given the factual error. However, there is a significant pause between Speaker A's turn ending around 0:41 and Speaker B's next turn starting at 0:51. This pause is approximately 10 seconds, which exceeds the 5-second limit mentioned in the criteria, disrupting the natural flow of the conversation.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2860.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2860",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are highly relevant throughout the conversation. Speaker A initiates by asking about pets. Speaker B responds directly and elaborates. When speaker B uses an unclear phrase (\"ocean I love\"), speaker A seeks clarification relevant to the context (assuming \"outdoor person\"), which is a natural and appropriate conversational move. Speaker B then clarifies accurately and adds related information. The conversation then flows naturally to the topic of getting a dog, with relevant back-and-forth about types of dogs and considerations for pet ownership. The speakers also engage in social pleasantries at the end, which are relevant to maintaining the interaction. All responses are logical and build upon previous turns.\n\n\n\nThe interaction generally has good turn-taking with minimal brief overlaps (e.g., around 0:06 and 0:45) that are acceptable. However, there is a significant pause between speaker A's turn ending around 0:45 and speaker B's next turn starting around 0:55. This pause is approximately 9 seconds long, which exceeds the 5-second threshold for acceptable pauses. This long pause disrupts the flow of the conversation.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 3,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2311.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2311",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are generally relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A asks about favorite parts of NYC, and Speaker B provides specific locations. Speaker A asks a follow-up question about one of the locations. Speaker B answers that question and then pivots the conversation to a related topic (travel), which is a natural conversational shift. Speaker A responds directly to the new topic and provides details about their travel experience. Speaker B asks a relevant follow-up question about the travel. Speaker A answers and elaborates. While Speaker B's final question \"Do you like to travel?\" after A has just listed many places they've visited feels slightly redundant, it leads into a relevant point about wanting to see those places. Overall, the conversation progresses logically through related topics.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency has significant issues. There are minor overlaps (e.g., around 0:06 and 0:27), but they are brief. However, there is a very long pause between Speaker A's statement about travel at 0:44 and Speaker B's next turn at 0:54. This pause is approximately 10 seconds long, which is well over the 5-second threshold for acceptability and significantly disrupts the flow of the conversation.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2313.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2313",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant to the topic being discussed, which is Speaker B considering medical school. Speaker A asks questions and makes comments directly related to Speaker B's responses about their thoughts, commitment level, timeline, and considerations like specialization and schools. Speaker B's answers directly address Speaker A's points and questions, providing relevant information about their decision process. There are no instances of off-topic replies or logical inconsistencies in the conversation content itself. The relevance aspect is strong.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is significantly impacted by prolonged pauses. While there is a pause of around 4 seconds between Speaker A's first follow-up (0:12) and Speaker B's response (0:16), which is acceptable according to the criteria, there is a very long pause of approximately 10 seconds between Speaker B mentioning the decision deadline (0:34) and Speaker A's next turn (0:44). This prolonged silence greatly disrupts the natural flow of the conversation and exceeds the acceptable limit of 5 seconds. There are no prolonged overlaps. Due to the extended pause, the interactional fluency is poor.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2368.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2368",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses between speakers A and B are consistently relevant to the topic of \"Rick and Morty\". Speaker B asks clarifying questions about the show and where it airs, and Speaker A provides appropriate answers and descriptions. Speaker B also reacts logically to the information given. There are no issues with response accuracy or logical consistency.\n\n\n\nThere are significant issues with interactional fluency in this dialogue. Speaker B interrupts Speaker A twice (at 0:06 and 0:24). Crucially, there is a very long pause between 0:25 and 0:34, lasting approximately 9 seconds, which is well over the 5-second threshold specified in the criteria as being harmful. This prolonged pause severely disrupts the natural flow of the conversation.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--438.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--438",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe initial question from Speaker A is clear and relevant. Speaker B's response mentioning a foam roller is relevant, but the addition of \"some other freeweight equipment\" for stretching is unusual and potentially misleading or unsafe without further explanation. Speaker A's follow-up question directly addressing the safety of using freeweights for stretching is highly relevant and logical given B's statement. Speaker B's response that it \"depends on the person's experience and form\" is a partially relevant answer to the safety question, but B immediately shifts the topic by asking about Speaker A's workout frequency (\"That's a pretty intense workout... Do you do it every day?\"). This topic shift makes the sequence of responses less logically consistent. Speaker B later interrupts Speaker A to suggest adding variety like yoga, which is relevant to the broader topic of flexibility and recovery, but the interruption disrupts the flow of relevance. While the conversation covers related themes, the handling of the \"freeweights for stretching\" point and the subsequent topic shift slightly detract from the consistent appropriateness of the responses. However, the dialogue is not nonsensical or irrelevant; the participants are clearly engaging with aspects of the initial topic. The issues are present but not significant enough to make the conversation irrelevant overall.\n\n\n\nThe dialogue features clear turn-taking with no significant pauses (over 5 seconds). There is one brief, acknowledged interruption by Speaker A at 0:05 (\"Sorry to interrupt...\"). However, Speaker B interrupts Speaker A at 0:22 (\"Actually, I wanted to mention that...\") cutting off A's sentence. This interruption is noticeable and disrupts the smooth flow of the conversation. While not a prolonged overlap (under 2 seconds), it prevents the interactional fluency from being consistently natural. Aside from this point, the pacing and turn-taking are generally appropriate. The interruption is a minor issue but prevents the fluency from being rated as consistently excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2400.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2400",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nSpeaker A's responses and questions are relevant throughout the dialogue. Speaker B initially states they have mountain biked \"several times\" and \"tried different types,\" which directly contradicts their later statement in the same turn, \"I've never been before.\" This significant logical inconsistency regarding Speaker B's experience level is a major issue for Response Relevance. The subsequent turns from both speakers are relevant to the discussion about planning the trip (timing, weather, equipment). However, the self-contradiction significantly impacts the quality of the information exchanged.\n\n\n\nThe turn-taking at the beginning includes a brief, acceptable overlap (A at 0:04). There is a significant prolonged pause between 0:30 and 0:39 (approximately 9 seconds), which exceeds the 5-second threshold defined as harmful and disrupts the flow of the conversation. There is another pause between 0:42 and 0:45 (approximately 3 seconds), which is acceptable. The primary fluency issue is the long pause.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--474.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--474",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe speakers maintain a relevant conversation about Star Wars, specifically discussing recent episodes, favorite characters, and the new movie. Speaker A introduces topics, and Speaker B responds appropriately with questions, confirmations, and shared opinions. Speaker B's interruption about special screenings, while a slight shift, is still relevant to the overall topic of the new movie release. Speaker A handles this well by answering the new question and attempting to return to the previous point about Luke's role. All responses demonstrate logical consistency within the flow of the conversation. There are no significant issues with response relevance.\n\n\n\nThe interaction features generally smooth turn-taking in the initial exchanges. However, there are two instances of brief overlap/interruption. Speaker B interrupts Speaker A at 00:25 with \"Sorry to jump in...\", and there is another brief overlap around 00:38. These are brief interruptions rather than prolonged overlaps (they appear to be under 2 seconds). There are no noticeable pauses exceeding 5 seconds. While these interruptions slightly disrupt the perfect flow, they are brief and the conversation recovers. Given the note that \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in audio are acceptable\", these instances do not constitute 'prolonged' or significantly harmful fluency issues. The interaction is mostly natural despite these minor points.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--468.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--468",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in this dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A introduces a topic (Anthony Trollope), and Speaker B follows up with a relevant question. Speaker A answers, and Speaker B acknowledges and expands the conversation. Speaker A then introduces a new author, which is relevant to the previous question about enjoying other books. Speaker B acknowledges this and then returns to the initial topic to ask for clarification, showing active listening and engagement with the earlier part of the conversation. Each response builds appropriately on the previous turn or logically shifts the topic.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no noticeable long pauses (over 5 seconds) or prolonged overlaps (over 2 seconds). The turn-taking is smooth and natural, allowing the conversation to flow easily without awkward interruptions or delays.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--621.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--621",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe speakers engage in a natural conversation about stocks. Speaker A asks for Speaker B's favorite stock, and Speaker B provides one, mentioning the industry. Speaker A then asks for clarification on *why* that stock is preferred, a relevant follow-up question. Speaker B explains their reason, which is logically connected to the stock's industry. Speaker A expresses interest and asks for resources, directly related to learning more about the topic discussed. Speaker B's response about tailoring recommendations is also highly relevant and shows an understanding of how to provide helpful information. Speaker A's final response accepts this while reiterating their initial request for general resources, which is also relevant. The responses are consistently relevant and build upon each other logically throughout the interaction.\n\n\n\nThe interaction flows smoothly with appropriate turn-taking. There is one brief interruption by Speaker A at 0:06 (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), which is acknowledged and does not significantly disrupt the flow. There are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds) or extensive overlaps (over 2 seconds). The timing and rhythm of the conversation feel natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2110.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2110",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in this dialogue are highly relevant to the topic of discussing stock portfolios and specific stock investments like Amazon and Disney. Speaker A initiates by asking about the portfolio, and Speaker B responds by mentioning stock purchases. Subsequent turns discuss related company initiatives (Amazon's AI) and investment decisions (buying more Disney), all staying on topic. There are no apparent issues with logical consistency based on the provided audio.\n\n\n\nThe interaction starts with relatively smooth turn-taking, although Speaker A briefly overlaps Speaker B at the beginning (which is acceptable). However, there is a significant prolonged pause lasting approximately 10 seconds between Speaker B's utterance at 0:31 and Speaker A's subsequent turn at 0:42. This long pause disrupts the natural flow of the conversation and constitutes a significant issue in interactional fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--629.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--629",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in this dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A asks a question about a release date, and Speaker B provides a plausible answer. Speaker A introduces new information (rumors of an earlier release) and asks for validation, which Speaker B addresses by expressing excitement and asking a related question about purchasing plans. Speaker A confirms their interest and introduces another potential timing (holidays), which Speaker B acknowledges and builds upon before transitioning smoothly to the related topic of price. Each turn directly relates to or naturally extends the previous one, maintaining a coherent conversation flow about the anticipated product.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. Turn-taking is smooth, and there are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds). There is a brief overlap at the very beginning where Speaker B starts speaking just before Speaker A finishes, and a slightly longer overlap (around 1.5-2 seconds) around the 00:18 mark where Speaker B begins their turn while Speaker A is finishing theirs. While close to the specified threshold for harmful overlaps, these feel more like natural conversational overlaps rather than disruptive ones. The overall flow is easy to follow and natural-sounding.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2310.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2310",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue starts well with relevant responses. Speaker A shares an experience about trying interesting food, and Speaker B asks for details. Speaker A describes eating Tajine and initially misidentifies it as a soup. Speaker B correctly points out that Tajine is usually a stew, which is a relevant clarification. Speaker A accepts the correction and elaborates.\n\nHowever, the relevance declines when Speaker B makes contradictory statements about their food preferences. Saying \"Are you a health nut like me? I only eat pizza\" is illogical and inconsistent. Later, stating \"I'm not really much of a foodie, I just like the taste of pizza\" and then immediately following with \"Yeah, I like trying different restaurants and new dishes\" creates significant confusion and lack of consistency in their responses about their own preferences. Speaker A correctly identifies this contradiction, but Speaker B's final response doesn't fully resolve it, just listing conflicting ideas. These contradictions make the latter part of the interaction feel less coherent and the responses less logically consistent from Speaker B's side.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. Turn-taking is smooth, and there are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds). There is a brief, natural overlap around the 17-second mark when Speaker B interjects to clarify about Tajine, but this is well under the 2-second threshold for being harmful and contributes to the natural flow of conversation rather than hindering it. The dialogue proceeds at a reasonable pace without awkward gaps.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 3,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2032.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2032",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue starts with Speaker A asking about life on Mars, and Speaker B providing a partially relevant response about liquid water. However, Speaker B's explanation of how water supports life (discussing drinking pure water killing you and bacteria) is completely irrelevant and factually incorrect in this context. Speaker A's final turn introduces a completely unrelated topic about a class. Therefore, there are significant issues with response relevance throughout the interaction, particularly in Speaker B's second turn and Speaker A's final turn.\n\n\n\nThe turn-taking at the beginning is relatively smooth with a brief, acceptable overlap. However, there is a noticeable pause between 00:11 and 00:15 (around 4 seconds), which is close to the 5-second limit for acceptability. More significantly, there is a very long pause between 00:28 and 00:38 (10 seconds) before Speaker A introduces a new topic. This prolonged pause significantly disrupts the flow of the conversation. Thus, there are significant issues with interactional fluency due to prolonged pauses.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2126.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2126",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are generally relevant to the conversation flow. Speaker A introduces the topic of a paleo diet, and Speaker B asks a relevant follow-up question about changes. Speaker A responds about energy, and Speaker B then brings up sleep patterns, connecting it back to diet. Speaker A answers about sleep but then shifts to the related topic of storing food, asking for tips. Speaker B responds to this, then adds a personal comment about discipline. Speaker A acknowledges this and shifts to exercise. Speaker B responds, and Speaker A interrupts briefly before continuing on the difficulty of consistency, asking about routine vs. motivation. Speaker B answers this and asks back about A's exercise habits. Speaker A replies about procrastination, and Speaker B asks a follow-up question. While there are several topic shifts, they are generally connected within the broader theme of health and lifestyle choices, and the participants appropriately respond to the immediate previous turn before introducing a new sub-topic or question. There are no instances of completely irrelevant or illogical responses.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency has some issues. There are minor overlaps and pauses which are acceptable in natural conversation. However, there is a prolonged pause lasting approximately 10 seconds between the speakers' turns around the 00:46 to 00:56 mark. This significant pause disrupts the smooth flow of the dialogue and falls outside the acceptable limits for interactional fluency according to the criteria (avoiding pauses over 5s). Although turn-taking is mostly smooth otherwise, this long pause constitutes a significant issue.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--571.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--571",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker B's initial question about psychology and philosophy being in the same field is directly relevant to Speaker A's stated interest. Speaker A's explanation of the fields, despite slight mispronunciations, is relevant and attempts to clarify the relationship. Speaker B's follow-up about ethics and morality in philosophy is a relevant continuation of the topic. Speaker A's confirmation and reflection on the connection are also relevant. Speaker B's point about how the fields complement each other is a thoughtful and relevant contribution. The conversation stays focused on the topics of psychology, philosophy, and learning throughout. There is a very minor moment (0:33-0:36) where Speaker A says \"I am glad you are teaching yourself new things,\" seemingly misattributing the learning interest back to Speaker B when Speaker A initiated the statement of interest. However, Speaker B's next turn smoothly acknowledges their own interest in learning, so it doesn't derail the conversation's relevance. Overall, the responses are accurate (within the context of a casual explanation) and the conversation is logically consistent.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth and natural, characteristic of a relaxed conversation. There are no noticeable prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds) between turns. There is a brief overlap around 0:11 when Speaker B politely interrupts (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), but this is a common feature of natural conversation and does not constitute a disruptive long overlap (2 seconds or more). The pacing feels appropriate, and the conversation flows well without awkward hesitations or interruptions.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--601.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--601",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are largely relevant throughout the dialogue. Speaker A asks for recommendations, and while Speaker B's initial response (\"You are the expert minus I don't know about one Jerry\") is a bit unusual and not entirely logical as a direct answer, the conversation quickly gets back on track. Speaker B then offers recommendations and asks relevant questions about size, color, and context (work appropriateness). Speaker A answers these questions and provides relevant information. The follow-up turns build logically on the previous statements, discussing preferences and potential issues (like suitability for work). The responses demonstrate good understanding of the preceding turns, despite the minor initial oddity from Speaker B.\n\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is smooth with no significant pauses exceeding 5 seconds. There are a couple of brief overlaps (e.g., at 00:23 and 00:46) where one speaker starts speaking just as the other is finishing or pausing briefly, but these overlaps are very short, lasting less than 2 seconds, and feel natural within a conversational flow. There are no instances of prolonged overlapping speech or awkward silences.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--522.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--522",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "thought\nThe user wants me to evaluate a two-person dialogue based on Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\n\nI need to listen to the audio provided and analyze the dialogue based on the two criteria.\n\n1. **Response Relevance**: Do the speakers' responses make sense in the context of the conversation? Are they answering the questions or addressing the points raised by the other speaker?\n * Speaker A asks about a display model of the new phone. Speaker B says it's over here. (Relevant)\n * Speaker A asks the cost of *this model* (referring to the display model). Speaker B asks if A is looking for specific features, then says \"just give us the size and we'll give you a price\". This is slightly off-topic regarding the initial price query for the *display model*, but it quickly pivots to the actual purchase process which is a reasonable follow-up in a sales context. Speaker A re-emphasizes she was asking about the price of *this model*, and Speaker B still avoids giving a specific price directly for the display model, instead asking for size and saying they'll give a price. This part is a bit confusing/misaligned. Speaker A seems to want a price for the phone they are looking at, while Speaker B seems to want to guide the conversation towards the purchase details (size to determine price). However, Speaker B's response is not entirely irrelevant, as it pertains to getting a price for the phone A is interested in, just not exactly how A framed the question initially (asking about the *display model's* cost). Let's consider the intent: A wants to know the price of the phone model. B understands this and is explaining how they determine/provide the price. It's a slight misunderstanding of the direct question but relevant to the underlying need (knowing the price to potentially buy).\n * Speaker A asks about features (good camera, high storage), confirming the need, but then reiterates the price question. Speaker B's subsequent response (asking for size to give price) follows from their previous turn.\n * Speaker B mentions a discount on accessories if bought today. This is a relevant sales add-on.\n * Speaker A acknowledges this and says they'll be back. (Relevant)\n * Speaker B says thank you. (Relevant)\n Overall, the responses are mostly relevant, although there's a slight disconnect on Speaker B's side initially regarding the price of the *display model* vs. the price for purchase based on size. This isn't a major breakdown, more of a slight misdirection in the conversation flow.\n\n2. **Interactional Fluency**: Are the turns smooth? Are there long pauses (over 5s) or long overlaps (over 2s)?\n * 0:00 - 0:04: A asks, B responds quickly. No long pauses or overlaps.\n * 0:05 - 0:07: A asks about cost.\n * 0:07 - 0:10: B interrupts (\"Sorry to interrupt...\") but it's a quick interruption, not a prolonged overlap. The turn-taking is smooth after this.\n * 0:11 - 0:17: A responds, clarifying features and price question. B waits for A to finish.\n * 0:17 - 0:20: B responds. No long pauses or overlaps.\n * 0:20 - 0:22: A responds.\n * 0:22 - 0:27: B responds, slightly overlapping (\"Actually, while you check it out...\"). This overlap is brief (less than 2s). B continues their point.\n * 0:28 - 0:30: A responds.\n * 0:31 - 0:31: B responds.\n There are no long pauses or overlaps over the thresholds (5s pause, 2s overlap). There are a couple of brief overlaps and interruptions, but these are natural in conversation and do not significantly disrupt fluency.\n\n3. **Overall Score**: Based on the analysis, both Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency seem mostly appropriate and natural. There's a slight awkwardness in the price discussion, but it's not a significant breakdown in relevance. The fluency is good with no major issues like long pauses or overlaps. This fits the criteria for an \"Excellent\" score.\n\nLet's structure the output according to the template.\nThe responses are largely relevant. Speaker A asks about a display model and its price, and Speaker B directs them to the model and attempts to explain how pricing works, while also trying to understand A's needs (features). There is a slight disconnect where Speaker A repeatedly asks for the price of \"this model\" (implying the one shown) and Speaker B redirects to needing size details to give a price, which feels a little evasive or a slight misunderstanding of the direct question about the displayed item's general price range. However, the responses are related to the topic of purchasing the phone and its cost, which is the core subject of the conversation. Speaker B also adds relevant sales information about accessories. Overall, the conversation progresses logically, despite the minor confusion regarding the direct price question.\n\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. Turn-taking is smooth with minimal unnatural pauses. There are a couple of brief overlaps, such as Speaker B interrupting Speaker A at 0:07 (\"Sorry to interrupt...\") and a slight overlap at 0:22 (\"Actually, while you check it out...\"), but these are short and do not exceed the 2-second threshold. There are no prolonged pauses over 5 seconds. The dialogue flows naturally.\n\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 6,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2105.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2105",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A initiates a conversation about installing apps, and Speaker B offers relevant advice. Speaker A then realizes a potential prerequisite (software update) and asks about its necessity, which is a logical follow-up. Speaker B confirms the necessity of the update and seamlessly transitions back to their original line of advice regarding app compatibility. The conversation flows naturally from one topic to a related sub-topic and back, demonstrating good relevance and coherence.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is impacted by an overlap between speakers A and B. At 00:13, Speaker A interrupts Speaker B with \"Sorry, sorry. But I just realized...\" while Speaker B is still speaking (\"...dong is connected to the internet...\"). This overlap lasts for approximately 3 seconds (from 00:13 to 00:16), which is longer than the acceptable threshold of 2 seconds. While there are no long pauses, this prolonged overlap disrupts the smooth flow of the conversation and indicates a significant issue in turn-taking.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--411.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--411",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant and logically connected. Speaker A initiates the topic of buying a new appliance, specifically an air fryer. Speaker B acknowledges this interest and agrees it's a good investment. Speaker A then introduces a specific model, and Speaker B asks a relevant follow-up question about its features compared to others. Speaker A answers this question and adds related information about capacity. Speaker B then introduces other relevant factors (capacity, energy efficiency) that are important when considering such an appliance. The conversation flows naturally from one related point to the next, demonstrating strong response relevance.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. Turn-taking is smooth, with speakers appropriately taking turns without long pauses. There is a brief overlap at the beginning of Speaker B's turn at 00:12, but it is very short and does not hinder the flow or intelligibility. There are no noticeable pauses exceeding the 5-second threshold or overlaps exceeding the 2-second threshold. The conversation feels natural and appropriately paced within the provided segment.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2808.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2808",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are generally relevant. Speaker A asks for a mechanic and clarifies the issue (radiator). Speaker B asks a slightly off-topic initial question (brakes) but quickly pivots to relevant diagnostic questions (overheating, leaks) once Speaker A mentions the radiator. Speaker A confirms the issue, and Speaker B offers further relevant advice (check hoses). The conversation stays focused on car problems and mechanics, and the responses build logically, despite the initial slight deviation.\n\n\n\nThe interaction exhibits a significant fluency issue around the 0:09 mark. Speaker B interrupts Speaker A mid-sentence (\"I need my radi...\") with \"Sorry to jump in, but if it's the radiator...\". This is a clear overlap and poor turn-taking, disrupting the flow of the conversation. There are no prolonged pauses (over 5s). However, the significant interruption constitutes a notable fluency problem.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2731.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2731",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are highly relevant and logical. Speaker A asks where to get seeds, Speaker B asks a clarifying question about the type of garden, which is relevant to finding the right seeds. Speaker A answers and re-emphasizes the need for seed sources. Speaker B offers a relevant solution by suggesting they can ask someone with experience. The conversation progresses logically with each turn building appropriately on the previous one.\n\n\n\nThere is a significant issue with interactional fluency due to a prolonged pause between 0:05 and 0:15. This pause is approximately 10 seconds long, which exceeds the acceptable limit of 5 seconds. While there are no prolonged overlaps, this long pause disrupts the natural flow of the conversation.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 4,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--612.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--612",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant and build upon each other logically. Speaker A starts by asking about challenges, and Speaker B provides a relevant answer, even interrupting briefly to add another relevant point. Speaker A then suggests potential solutions, and Speaker B follows up with a related suggestion (seeking external advice). Speaker A asks for clarification on a previous point, and Speaker B provides relevant context based on past experience. The conversation flows well and stays on topic.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. The turn-taking is generally smooth. There is one brief overlap around the 00:09 mark where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A, but this is short (less than 2 seconds) and seems natural for adding a point in conversation. There are no long pauses (over 5 seconds) or prolonged overlaps detected in the audio.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2831.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2831",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A initiates by asking about Sacagawea. Speaker B provides information, albeit with an initial factual error regarding ethnicity. Speaker A corrects this error respectfully, and Speaker B immediately acknowledges the mistake and provides the correct information, elaborating on Sacagawea's tribal affiliation and family. The conversation then flows logically, discussing Sacagawea's contributions to the expedition, her travel methods, and transitioning to the broader topic of American Indian tribes and their treatment. Each turn builds upon the previous one in a coherent manner.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is generally good throughout the dialogue, with appropriate turn-taking and minimal brief pauses or overlaps. However, there is one significant pause lasting approximately 6 seconds between Speaker A's question at 0:40 (\"Wait, when you say back to the boat, do you mean they were traveling by river most of the time?\") and Speaker B's response at 0:46 (\"Yes, they traveled a lot by river...\"). This pause exceeds the 5-second threshold mentioned in the criteria, impacting the overall smoothness of the interaction. The dialogue also ends abruptly with a prolonged beep which is not a fluency issue between the speakers themselves but an external cutoff. Due to the significant pause, the fluency is not consistently appropriate and natural.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 6,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2216.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2216",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are relevant and logically connected. Speaker A asks about the five-pointed star, Speaker B explains its representation. A then asks about its frequency in specific music, B provides a likely reason. A interrupts with a follow-up question about deeper meaning, which B addresses while adding related information. A acknowledges this and shares their opinion, which B reciprocates, linking it to their background (art major) and expanding on interpreting symbols. A then asks if B wants to share their art, which is a logical progression given B just mentioned being an art major and appreciating symbols. B agrees and provides a way to see their work. The conversation flows logically from topic to topic, with each speaker's turn building on the previous one.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is significantly impacted by long pauses between turns. There is a noticeable pause (approx 3-4 seconds) after Speaker A's question at 0:20, and a very long pause (approx 9 seconds) after Speaker A's comment at 0:51 before Speaker B speaks again. There is also a long pause (over 10 seconds) after Speaker B finishes speaking at 1:12. While there are no significant long overlaps, these prolonged silences disrupt the natural flow and make the interaction feel disjointed rather than smooth.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2315.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2315",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are mostly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A expresses interest in Virginia Woolf, Speaker B lists some of her works, and Speaker A then asks about starting with one of the mentioned works, which is a direct and relevant follow-up. Speaker B provides recommendations, also relevant to the topic. The final comment from Speaker A about loving \"beach reads\" is a slight tangent but doesn't completely derail the conversation and is acceptable in a casual dialogue context.\n\n\n\nThere is a significant issue with interactional fluency. There is a prolonged pause between Speaker B's turn finishing (around 0:29) and Speaker A's next turn beginning (0:39). This pause is approximately 10 seconds long, which is well over the 5-second limit specified in the criteria and significantly impacts the natural flow of the conversation. There are no significant overlaps.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2733.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2733",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are highly relevant to the topic of fixing a bad driveway. Speaker A asks for ideas, and Speaker B provides a logical first step (checking for underlying issues) before discussing surface fixes. Speaker A acknowledges the validity of this point and agrees to follow the suggestion. Subsequent turns maintain focus on this process and planning for future discussion. All responses are appropriate and contribute to the conversation flow regarding the problem and potential solutions.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency has a significant issue at the beginning. After Speaker A asks for ideas (0:00-0:04), Speaker B interjects briefly (0:04-0:05), but then there is a prolonged pause lasting approximately 10 seconds (from 0:05 to 0:15) before Speaker B continues their response. This long pause violates the \"pauses over 5s\" rule and disrupts the flow of the dialogue. There is also a brief overlap at the very start, but the long pause is the primary fluency issue. The turn-taking after this initial pause is smooth with appropriate response times.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2393.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2393",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are relevant and logically connected. Speaker A asks about hiking, Speaker B confirms and provides details, and Speaker A follows up with relevant questions about the duration and motivation for hiking. Speaker B then provides a response related to finding it tough but good exercise. The content flows well in terms of topic.\n\n\n\nThere is a significant issue with interactional fluency due to a prolonged overlap starting around 0:08. Speaker A begins speaking over Speaker B's response, and this overlap lasts for approximately 11 seconds, which is well beyond the acceptable limit. This disrupts the smooth turn-taking of the conversation.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 6,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--574.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--574",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in this dialogue are consistently relevant and logically connected. Speaker A initiates with a greeting, and Speaker B responds appropriately, adding context about a recent trip. Speaker A then asks a relevant follow-up question about future travel plans. When Speaker B mentions visiting Japan, Speaker A immediately acknowledges this and asks a logical question about timing. Similarly, when Speaker B introduces the topic of budget (even though interrupted), Speaker A picks up on the keyword and asks a relevant question about deals. The conversation flows naturally from topic to topic based on the speakers' contributions, demonstrating strong response relevance.\n\n\n\nThe interaction features rapid turn-taking without any noticeable pauses exceeding 5 seconds. There are instances of overlap where Speaker A begins speaking before Speaker B has finished their turn (specifically around 00:16 and 00:29). However, based on the audio timing, these overlaps appear to be brief, lasting less than 2 seconds each. According to the scoring criteria, prolonged pauses or overlaps for 2 seconds or more are harmful, while small pauses and brief overlaps are acceptable. Therefore, despite the presence of overlaps, they do not violate the specific timing thresholds defined as detrimental to fluency in the prompt. The overall turn-taking feels responsive, if a little abrupt at times due to the interruptions.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 6,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--684.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--684",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe speakers maintain excellent response relevance throughout the dialogue. They respond directly to each other's points, whether agreeing, elaborating, or questioning. For example, Speaker B immediately agrees about Colin Firth and adds their own relevant example (King's Speech). When Speaker A introduces a factual error about Daniel Radcliffe in A Clockwork Orange, Speaker B appropriately questions it, and Speaker A acknowledges and corrects the mistake, then continues the conversation about the movie itself. This demonstrates a natural and logical flow, handling a minor inaccuracy effectively within the interaction. The topic transitions are also smooth and relevant to a conversation about movies and actors.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is smooth with minimal pauses between speakers. There are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds) or significant overlaps (over 2 seconds). There are a couple of brief, natural interruptions/overlaps, which are common in spontaneous conversation and do not detract from the fluency. The pacing feels natural and conversational.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--452.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--452",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses from both speakers are highly relevant and logical. Speaker A expresses a desire to visit France and mentions interest in its history and learning the language. Speaker B responds by agreeing and asking a relevant follow-up question about the necessity of knowing French. Speaker A answers the question and adds another benefit of learning the language, which B acknowledges and builds upon. The conversation flows naturally with each turn directly related to the previous one, showing strong response relevance.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. Turn-taking is smooth, with minimal pauses between speakers. There are no pauses approaching 5 seconds or longer. There are very brief overlaps, but they are short and typical of natural conversation, not lasting anywhere near 2 seconds or more. The dialogue feels fluid and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 4,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--457.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--457",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant and logically follow the conversation flow. Speaker A asks for recommendations, Speaker B asks for clarification on preferences, Speaker A provides preferences, Speaker B recommends based on preferences and adds related suggestions (tomatoes). Speaker A then asks a relevant follow-up question about one of the suggestions (tomato maintenance), which Speaker B answers directly. Speaker B then introduces another relevant category (herbs), and Speaker A reacts and seeks clarification, leading Speaker B to repeat the suggestion. All turns directly address the previous turn or extend the topic logically within the context of planning a vegetable garden.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. Turn-taking is smooth with no prolonged pauses (over 5s). There are a couple of brief overlaps (e.g., at 0:24 and 0:41), but they are very short and appear natural, indicating active listening and engagement rather than disruptive interruption. These overlaps are well under the 2-second threshold and do not harm the interaction flow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2921.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2921",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nSpeaker A mentions their situation wanting a dog in an apartment and the challenge. Speaker B responds appropriately by bringing up a relevant challenge: noise factor. Speaker A acknowledges this point. However, Speaker A then shifts to suggesting that Speaker B should consider a cat, which is a non-sequitur as Speaker A was describing their own situation, not asking for advice for Speaker B. Speaker B then affirms that cats are easier, which is relevant to the idea of apartment pets, but then asks an unrelated question (\"Do you have a pet?\"). While there are some relevant points exchanged, the shift in who the suggestion is directed at (A suggesting B get a cat) and the final question feel less cohesive, suggesting some issues with logical consistency in the flow of the conversation.\n\n\n\nThe interaction starts reasonably smoothly, with a brief polite interruption from Speaker B (\"Sorry to jump in\"). There is a small overlap between the speakers around the 0:23-0:24 mark. However, there is a very long pause of approximately 9 seconds (0:25 - 0:34) after Speaker A finishes speaking and before Speaker B continues their thought. This long pause significantly disrupts the natural flow and turn-taking of the conversation.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--689.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--689",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A asks for a definition of studio monitors, and Speaker B provides a clear and accurate definition. Speaker A then asks a clarifying question about their purpose (improving music quality), which Speaker B confirms and elaborates on (providing a more accurate sound). The conversation then shifts naturally to the topic of recording studios, with relevant questions and responses exchanged. Each turn builds logically on the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. Turn-taking is generally smooth and natural. There are two brief moments where one speaker slightly overlaps or interrupts the other (Speaker A interrupts B initially, and Speaker B interrupts A later), but these are very short, do not impede comprehension, and are typical of natural conversation rather than being disruptive prolonged overlaps. There are no noticeable pauses longer than 5 seconds. The flow of the dialogue is natural and conversational.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--537.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--537",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A introduces a topic (tuna salad recipe). Speaker B directly responds with their reluctance. Speaker A then addresses this reluctance by suggesting a \"twist,\" prompting Speaker B to ask for more details. Speaker A provides the details, and Speaker B follows up with a practical concern about ingredients. Each turn builds logically on the previous one, showing clear understanding and progression of the conversation.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. There is a brief overlap at the beginning, where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B, but A immediately apologizes (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), indicating it was a minor, acknowledged turn-taking issue rather than a prolonged problem. The subsequent turns flow smoothly without noticeable long pauses or significant overlaps based on the provided transcription and timing. Small, brief overlaps and pauses are acceptable according to the criteria.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--445.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--445",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates generally appropriate response relevance. The conversation flows from greetings to discussing meal preparation. Speaker B introduces the idea of making a simple meal, and Speaker A asks clarifying questions about meal type. While Speaker B's response about making dinner tomorrow (0:18) is a slightly awkward answer to A's question about a meal *today*, and Speaker A introduces ground beef (0:28) seemingly shifting focus from B's preferred simple meals, the dialogue remains within the overarching topic of cooking and meal planning. There are no significant logical inconsistencies or completely irrelevant turns. The responses are mostly on-topic and understandable within the context of the conversation.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. Turn-taking is quick with no pauses exceeding 5 seconds. There are brief overlaps, notably at 0:13 when Speaker A interrupts with \"Sorry to jump in...\" and again at 0:36 when Speaker B interrupts. However, these overlaps are brief and seem to fall within the category of acceptable small overlaps mentioned in the note, rather than prolonged or disruptive ones over 2 seconds. The flow is mostly smooth, allowing the conversation to progress naturally despite the minor interruptions.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2292.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2292",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are relevant and logical. Speaker A asks for a joke, Speaker B starts one but then asks for clarification on the type of joke desired, Speaker A clarifies, and Speaker B then provides a joke. The turns are appropriate and follow a coherent sequence, even with the pause and clarification step.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is significantly affected by a prolonged pause in the middle of the dialogue (approximately 10 seconds between 00:07 and 00:17). This pause is well over the 5-second threshold, disrupting the natural flow of the conversation. There are no significant overlaps. However, the long pause indicates a significant issue in fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--473.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--473",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "32;thought\nThe user wants me to evaluate a two-person dialogue based on Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency. I need to listen to the audio, analyze each aspect, provide a thinking process for each, and then assign a single overall score (1 for Poor, 2 for Excellent) based on both evaluations.\n\n**Plan:**\n1. Listen to the audio carefully, paying attention to the content of each speaker's turn and how they relate to the previous turn.\n2. Analyze Response Relevance: Check if speakers are answering questions appropriately, building on the conversation topics, and maintaining logical consistency.\n3. Write the `` section, explaining my analysis and why the relevance is good or poor.\n4. Listen to the audio again, focusing on the timing of turns, pauses, and overlaps.\n5. Analyze Interactional Fluency: Check for prolonged pauses (>5s) or significant overlaps (>2s). Note the smoothness of turn-taking.\n6. Write the `` section, explaining my analysis and why the fluency is good or poor.\n7. Based on both analyses, determine the overall score (1 or 2).\n8. Format the output according to the specified template.\n\n**Audio Analysis:**\n- A: Hi, how are you?\n- B: Great. What are you eating? (Relevant response, introduces new topic)\n- A: Eating some nuts. (Relevant response)\n- B: Aren't nuts bad for you? (Relevant question based on A's statement)\n- A: They're healthy... when they're not roasted in... (Relevant answer, starting explanation)\n- B: Sorry to interrupt, but are you sure all nuts are healthy? I've read some conflicting information... (Interrupts but is directly relevant to A's point and adds nuance)\n- A: Yes, some nuts are healthier than others... but generally unsalted ones are good for you. Nuts are so good. Do you like dried fruits? (Relevant answer, expands on the topic, transitions smoothly to a related topic)\n- B: I like dried fruit, but I don't have much of a sweet tooth. (Relevant answer, connects to A's question, adds personal detail)\n- A: Do you have a sweet tooth? (Asks B about the detail B just provided - minor redundancy, but keeps conversation going)\n- B: I do. Do you like sweets? (Relevant answer, reciprocates the question)\n- A: I actually don't have a sweet tooth at all. I like savory food the most. (Relevant answer)\n- B: You don't! I thought all girls had a sweet tooth? (Shows surprise, relevant comment)\n- A: I don't. I only like savory food. (Confirms, relevant)\n- B: Do you like olives? (Introduces a new topic related to savory food)\n- A: I like olives, but not on their own because... (Relevant answer, starting explanation)\n- B: Wait, why not? What is it about eating olives on their own that you don't like? (Interrupts but directly asks for clarification on A's incomplete thought - relevant)\n- A: It's just the strong taste. I'll have to try it again sometime. (Relevant answer, explains)\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n- Speakers consistently respond to each other's questions and statements.\n- Topics transition naturally (nuts -> dried fruit -> sweet tooth/savory food -> olives).\n- Speakers build on each other's points (e.g., B asking about healthy nuts after A mentions eating them, B asking A about sweet tooth after mentioning their own).\n- There's one interruption by B (at 0:11), but it's immediately relevant to A's statement about nuts being healthy, asking for clarification/nuance.\n- There's another interruption by B (at 0:50), again asking for clarification when A pauses while explaining why she doesn't like olives on their own.\n- The content is logically consistent within the simple conversational flow.\n\nConclusion for Response Relevance: Excellent.\n\n**Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\n- Turn-taking is mostly smooth.\n- There are no prolonged pauses (>5s).\n- There are a couple of brief overlaps/interruptions:\n - B interrupts A at 0:11 (\"Sorry to interrupt, but...\") - this is a clear, though brief, overlap. It's less than 2 seconds.\n - B interrupts A at 0:50 (\"Wait, why not?\") - this is also a brief overlap, less than 2 seconds.\n- These overlaps are very short and serve a specific conversational purpose (asking for clarification/nuance), making the interaction feel natural rather than disruptive.\n- Turn changes generally happen promptly after the speaker finishes their thought.\n\nConclusion for Interactional Fluency: Excellent. The brief overlaps are natural and not prolonged.\n\n**Overall Score:**\nBoth Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency are excellent. Therefore, the overall score should be 2.\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Speakers A and B consistently respond directly to each other's questions and statements. They follow the conversational flow, moving from an initial greeting and topic about food (nuts), to related topics (dried fruit, sweet tooth, savory food, olives). When a speaker introduces a new topic (e.g., B asking \"What are you eating?\", A asking \"Do you like dried fruits?\", B asking \"Do you like olives?\"), the other speaker provides a relevant answer and often expands or asks a related question. The slight interruptions by B (at 0:11 and 0:50) are not disruptive to relevance; they are brief interjections seeking clarification or further detail on the current topic. The conversation maintains logical consistency throughout.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is smooth and natural, with speakers taking turns without significant hesitation. There are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds). There are a couple of very brief overlaps where speaker B interrupts speaker A (at 0:11 and 0:50), but these are short (less than 2 seconds) and serve conversational functions (apologizing before interrupting, asking for immediate clarification). These brief overlaps feel natural in spontaneous conversation and do not detract from the overall smoothness or understanding.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 6,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--467.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--467",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses between speaker A and speaker B are consistently relevant to the ongoing conversation. Speaker A asks for tennis tips, and speaker B responds by asking about A's current level and practice methods. The conversation progresses logically from discussing A's experience and challenges (balance, hand-eye coordination) to what they enjoy about the sport, and finally to future plans related to tennis (playing in tournaments, potentially playing at Stanford). Speaker A's brief interruption at the end is directly related to the topic speaker B was introducing (Stanford and tennis), and speaker B confirms this. The questions and answers flow well, demonstrating good topic maintenance and relevant contributions from both participants.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth with no noticeable pauses exceeding 5 seconds. There is one instance of overlap towards the end when speaker A interrupts speaker B to bring up the Stanford tennis program, but this overlap is very brief (well under 2 seconds) and immediately acknowledged by speaker A (\"Sorry to jump in\"). Such brief overlaps are natural in conversation and not detrimental according to the criteria. The rhythm of the dialogue feels natural and responsive.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--546.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--546",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe conversation starts with Speaker A mentioning cooking with garden ingredients. Speaker B responds positively but then immediately shifts to asking about cooking steak. Speaker A briefly apologizes for interrupting and asks about growing herbs, bringing it back to the garden theme. Speaker B answers the herb question but then abruptly brings the conversation back to the steak topic mentioned earlier. Speaker A then follows this lead and asks about the marinade.\n\nWhile the speakers are generally responding to the previous utterance, the topic shifts are quite abrupt and feel a little disjointed (B introducing steak, A bringing it back to herbs, B returning to steak). However, speakers *are* acknowledging and responding to each other's points, even when redirecting the conversation. It's not irrelevant, just not a perfectly smooth topic progression. It's not a *significant* issue in terms of completely failing to respond.\n\n\n\nThe interaction flows reasonably well. There are no long pauses (over 5 seconds) between turns. There are very brief, acceptable overlaps at the beginning when Speaker A says \"Sorry to jump in\" while Speaker B is still talking. These overlaps are well under the 2-second threshold. The turn-taking is otherwise smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--539.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--539",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant to the topic of knitting and related personal habits. Speaker B directly answers Speaker A's initial question about knitting. Speaker A's slight initial confusion (\"I don't knit either\" followed by clarifying they do knit but lack time) is quickly resolved and doesn't hinder the conversation flow. Speaker B asks a relevant follow-up question about what was made and later references Speaker A's earlier comment about finishing projects, demonstrating attentive listening. Speaker A provides clear and relevant answers to these questions. The conversation progresses logically from discussing whether they knit to what they've made and a clarification of a previous statement.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The speakers take turns smoothly without noticeable long pauses (over 5 seconds) or significant overlaps (over 2 seconds). There are minor natural pauses between turns, but they are brief and do not disrupt the flow. The turn-taking is timely, making the conversation feel natural and engaging.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2333.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2333",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are generally relevant to the conversation topic of a vacation in Jamaica and Caribbean islands. Speaker A asks relevant questions about the vacation experience and previous travel. Speaker B provides relevant details about the trip and activities. However, at approximately 0:20, Speaker A asks \"What else did you enjoy besides...\", and Speaker B interrupts slightly (\"Oh\") and then, after a long pause, shifts the topic back to beach activities and asks a new question about water sports. This leaves Speaker A's question unanswered and disrupts the logical flow, preventing the relevance from being \"consistently appropriate\".\n\n\n\nThere is a significant issue with interactional fluency due to a very long pause between 0:20 and 0:30, which is approximately 10 seconds. This pause is well over the stated threshold of 5 seconds and is considered harmful according to the criteria. There is also a brief overlap around 0:20, but this is brief and within acceptable limits. The long pause is the primary reason for the poor fluency evaluation.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--640.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--640",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are highly relevant and logical throughout the dialogue. Speaker A initiates by asking how Speaker B is doing. Speaker B responds directly and then reciprocates by asking about Speaker A's test. Speaker A shares the positive news about the test result, and Speaker B reacts with enthusiasm and asks a relevant follow-up question. Speaker A elaborates on the effort and mentions achieving straight A's, which is a logical continuation of sharing academic success. Speaker B provides an encouraging and relevant comment based on Speaker A's achievements. The closing remarks are also appropriate. The conversation flows naturally with coherent and relevant exchanges.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is smooth with no significant pauses (over 5 seconds) between turns. There is a very brief, natural-sounding overlap at 00:16-00:17 when Speaker B excitedly interrupts Speaker A's report about being proud. This overlap is well under the 2-second threshold and does not disrupt the conversation flow. Overall, the dialogue feels very natural and conversational in terms of timing and turn management.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--433.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--433",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are generally relevant, with speakers addressing the points raised by the previous speaker. Speaker A starts by stating their opinion on the EU (0:00), and Speaker B asks for clarification (0:03). Speaker A provides a reason (0:05), and Speaker B asks for further detail and examples (0:08). Speaker A responds with a specific reason (regulations) before shifting the topic by asking Speaker B's opinion on leaving the EU (0:17). This is a noticeable shift, but Speaker B directly answers the new question (0:19), and Speaker A then agrees and elaborates on why they also love the EU (0:24). Speaker B then introduces a related but new point about immigration control (0:32), which Speaker A immediately questions (0:35). While there are shifts in topic, the speakers do respond to the points or questions raised by the other person, maintaining a degree of conversational flow even as the subject evolves. The relevance is mostly appropriate, following the conversational turns, although it doesn't stick strictly to the initial point of disagreement. There are no major logical inconsistencies in the points raised.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is good overall. Turn-taking is relatively smooth, and there are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds) between turns. There is one instance of overlap at the end of the recording (0:35), where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. This overlap is brief and falls within the acceptable range mentioned in the instructions (less than 2 seconds). The conversation proceeds without significant disruption from timing issues.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 3,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2891.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2891",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe response relevance is mostly appropriate throughout the dialogue, with speakers responding to each other's points about reading \"The Republic\", the nature of its writing, and preferences for different types of media. However, the final turn from speaker B, asking \"What's a platonic idea?\" after speaker A specifically asked about Plato's ideas *in* The Republic, is highly irrelevant and indicates a complete lack of engagement or understanding of the conversation's core topic, which has been about Plato's work. This significant irrelevant response negatively impacts the overall response relevance.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is affected by a long pause between 0:32 and 0:41, which is approximately 9-10 seconds. This significant pause disrupts the natural flow of the conversation, exceeding the acceptable limit of 5 seconds. There are no prolonged overlaps detected.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2765.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2765",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "thought\nThe user wants me to evaluate a two-person interactional dialogue based on Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\nI need to analyze the dialogue for:\n1. **Response Relevance**: Do the speakers respond appropriately to each other's turns? Is the conversation logical and coherent?\n2. **Interactional Fluency**: Is the turn-taking smooth? Are there long pauses (over 5s) or prolonged overlaps (2s or more)? Brief pauses/overlaps are acceptable.\n\nAfter analyzing both aspects, I need to provide a `` block, a `` block, and an `` (1 for significant issues, 2 for consistently appropriate/natural).\n\n**Dialogue Breakdown:**\n* **Speaker A (0:00):** Mentions reading Dostoevsky, specifically Crime and Punishment, but hasn't gotten far.\n* **Speaker B (0:06):** Comments on Crime and Punishment being deep, asks how far A has gotten, and shares their own experience reading it, mentioning Raskolnikov's motives. (Relevant response)\n* **Speaker A (0:18):** Says not very far, got sidetracked, praises Russian literature, admits not being as educated in literature as they should be but wants to learn more. (Relevant response, elaborating on why they haven't gotten far)\n* **Speaker B (0:29):** Mentions reading a lot of Dostoevsky too, asks A's favorite book. (Relevant response, continuing the topic of Dostoevsky/literature)\n* **Speaker A (0:33):** Says \"You tall wow,\" then struggles to choose a favorite because \"each...\" (This seems like a potential stumble or misrecognition of \"You tall\" - likely meant \"It's tough\" or similar - followed by a valid reason for difficulty choosing). Gets interrupted.\n* **Speaker B (0:36):** Asks \"How about a more recent book?\" (Interrupts Speaker A's response but is a relevant follow-up question given the difficulty choosing a favorite overall). There is a significant pause after this.\n* **Speaker B (0:47):** Continues asking for a recent book, maybe one read in the past year. (Continues after the long pause, reiterating the question).\n* **Speaker A (0:53):** Responds by naming \"To the Lighthouse\" by Virginia Woolf. (Relevant response to the question about a recent book).\n* **Speaker B (0:57):** Says \"That's on my reading list too,\" mentions their teacher recommended it but wants to read it on their own time, then asks A what book *they* have been reading (shifting from *A's* reading to *B's* reading in general, but still on the topic of reading).\n* **Speaker A (1:05):** Says they like poetry and have been reading Shel Silverstein. Praises his poems but struggles to find the right book they enjoy most. (Relevant response to the general question about what book *A* has been reading).\n* **Speaker B (1:14):** Recommends a poetry anthology (\"Century Treasury of Russian Poetry Ray\") if A is interested in poetry, stating it has many great poems. (Relevant response, offering a suggestion based on A's stated interest in poetry).\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n- The conversation flows logically from A mentioning Dostoevsky to B discussing it, then B asking A's favorite, then B asking about a recent book, A answering, B acknowledging and shifting slightly, A mentioning poetry, and B recommending a poetry book.\n- All responses are directly related to the previous turn or the ongoing topic of reading and literature.\n- There's one minor point where A says \"You tall wow\" which seems like an error, but the subsequent words indicate they understood the question and were trying to answer. B interrupts this answer but asks a related follow-up.\n- Overall, the responses are relevant and the conversation topic is maintained logically.\n\n**Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\n- Speaker A starts, Speaker B responds.\n- Speaker A responds.\n- Speaker B responds.\n- Speaker A responds but is interrupted by Speaker B. The interruption is brief (< 2s).\n- Speaker B asks a follow-up question.\n- There is a **long pause** after Speaker B's question at 0:37. It lasts until Speaker B speaks again at 0:47 (approximately 10 seconds). This is well over the 5s threshold.\n- Speaker B repeats/clarifies the question after the pause.\n- Speaker A responds.\n- Speaker B responds and asks another question.\n- Speaker A responds.\n- Speaker B responds.\n- There are no prolonged overlaps (> 2s).\n- The significant pause between 0:37 and 0:47 is a clear issue with interactional fluency.\n\n**Scoring:**\n- **Response Relevance:** The relevance is good throughout. Responses are appropriate and the conversation is coherent. No significant issues here.\n- **Interactional Fluency:** There is a significant pause of ~10 seconds, which violates the criteria for an \"Excellent\" score. This constitutes a \"Significant issue\" in Interactional Fluency.\n- **Overall Score:** Since there is a significant issue in Interactional Fluency, the overall score must be 1.\n\n**Constructing the Output:**\n- Write the analysis for Response Relevance, explaining why it's good.\n- Write the analysis for Interactional Fluency, highlighting the long pause as the key issue.\n- Assign the overall score based on the findings.\nThe speakers' responses are consistently relevant and maintain the flow of the conversation about reading and literature. Speaker A introduces Dostoevsky, and Speaker B responds by discussing the specific book and their experience. Speaker A elaborates on why they haven't progressed far. Speaker B asks about favorite books, and Speaker A attempts to answer before being interrupted with a question about a recent book. Speaker A provides a relevant answer (To the Lighthouse). Speaker B acknowledges this and asks about what A is currently reading, leading to a discussion about poetry and recommendations. Although Speaker A's \"You tall wow\" sounds like a verbal stumble, the following words indicate they understood the question and were attempting to answer, making the response's intent relevant. The overall thread of the conversation is logical and coherent.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is generally good with smooth turn-taking, except for one significant issue. There is a prolonged pause lasting approximately 10 seconds between Speaker B's question at 0:37 (\"How about a more recent book?\") and Speaker B repeating/clarifying the question at 0:47. This pause is well over the 5-second threshold defined as acceptable and represents a significant breakdown in the natural rhythm of the conversation. There are no overlaps exceeding the 2-second threshold. The long pause is the primary fluency issue.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2955.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2955",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A asks if Speaker B knows how to cook, and B responds appropriately, expressing interest in learning. They both confirm their interest in cooking/learning to cook. Speaker A then proposes a cooking task (making a burger), and Speaker B asks a relevant question about how to start, which leads to A explaining the process. The interaction follows a natural flow of conversation around the topic of cooking.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is significantly impacted by a long pause. Speaker B interrupts Speaker A at 00:22 and then there is a pause of approximately 10 seconds (from 00:23 to 00:33) before B continues their sentence/question. This long pause exceeds the acceptable limit of 5 seconds and disrupts the flow of the conversation. There is also a brief overlap at 00:05 where Speaker A starts speaking as Speaker B finishes, but this is brief and acceptable. The pause between 00:36 and 00:40 is also acceptable (around 4 seconds). However, the prolonged pause from 00:23 to 00:33 represents a significant issue in fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--409.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--409",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker B expresses a feeling of tiredness, and Speaker A immediately offers a potential explanation (lack of sleep) which is a common cause of fatigue. Speaker B confirms this is the case and follows up by asking for advice (seeing a doctor), which is a logical next step when discussing health concerns. Speaker A provides relevant advice based on their own experience. Finally, Speaker B asks for practical tips related to the identified problem (improving sleep). Each turn builds logically on the previous one, demonstrating good understanding and topic maintenance.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. There are no noticeable long pauses (over 5 seconds). There are two instances of brief overlap: Speaker A overlaps slightly with Speaker B to ask about sleep, prefacing it with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which is a natural conversational move. Speaker B also overlaps briefly with Speaker A when agreeing with the suggestion to see a doctor. These overlaps are short and do not disrupt the flow significantly (they are well under the 2-second threshold for problematic overlap). Turn-taking is otherwise smooth and responsive.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--652.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--652",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are highly relevant and logical. Speaker A answers the initial question about music preferences and elaborates on their likes and dislikes. Speaker B asks a relevant follow-up question about Speaker A's dislike for country music, which Speaker A answers directly. Although Speaker A transitions to discussing hip-hop, this is still within the broader topic of music preferences. Speaker B acknowledges this point about hip-hop but skillfully brings the conversation back to the previous point about country music, asking a relevant follow-up question about exploring subgenres. The dialogue maintains a clear conversational flow centered around the shared topic of music.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. There are no prolonged pauses over 5 seconds. There is a minor interruption by Speaker B at approximately 0:16 (\"Sorry to jump in...\"), which slightly disrupts the turn-taking but is brief and acknowledged. There is also a very brief overlap at the start of Speaker B's turn around 0:30, but this is a small overlap and acceptable in natural conversation according to the criteria. Overall, the turns are taken smoothly with only minor, brief disruptions that do not significantly impede the flow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2932.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2932",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe response relevance is mostly appropriate throughout the dialogue. Speaker A asks about a show, Speaker B responds whether they saw it and why. Speaker A then asks about specific aspects of the show (dragons, music, graphics), and Speaker B responds to those points. There is a minor logical inconsistency when Speaker B asks Speaker A \"why don't you like fantasy shows?\" at 0:18, as Speaker A had just indicated they watched and enjoyed the show. It was Speaker B who said they didn't care for fantasy shows. However, this is a minor issue and doesn't completely break the conversation flow. The final turn connects back to the music topic. Overall, the responses are generally relevant and follow the conversation's direction, despite the slight misstep.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency has some issues. There are brief overlaps at 0:16 and 0:43, which are acceptable. However, there is a significant pause lasting approximately 9 seconds between 0:45 and 0:54. This prolonged pause exceeds the acceptable limit of 5 seconds and disrupts the flow of the conversation. The turn-taking is otherwise relatively smooth outside of these specific instances. The significant pause is a major issue for fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--529.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--529",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe speakers consistently respond to each other's questions and statements. The conversation flows logically from general cooking preferences to the specific topic of baking pretzels. Even when speaker A interrupts briefly (0:15), the topic remains relevant to the ongoing discussion about pretzels, and speaker B picks up and continues the conversation smoothly afterwards. The responses are accurate within the context of personal preferences and experiences shared.\n\n\n\nTurn-taking is generally smooth with immediate responses. There are a couple of very brief overlaps (e.g., around 0:15 and 0:35) where one speaker starts slightly before the other finishes, but these are very short, characteristic of natural conversation, and do not impede understanding or constitute prolonged overlapping audio (less than 2 seconds). There are no long pauses over 5 seconds. The interactional flow feels natural and fluent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 3,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2885.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2885",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nAnalysing Response Relevance:\nThe responses are highly relevant and maintain a coherent conversation thread about exercise. Speaker A asks how B is doing, and B responds and introduces the topic of exercise. Speaker A then expands on their own exercise habits. Speaker B interrupts to ask for more detail, which is directly related to A's statement. Speaker A provides the details. Speaker B transitions smoothly to a related exercise topic (swimming). Speaker A responds by sharing their experience with swimming. Speaker B acknowledges this and later asks a follow-up question about learning to swim as an adult, which is still on the same topic. All turns build logically on the previous ones.\n\nConclusion: Response Relevance is excellent.\n\n\n\nAnalysing Interactional Fluency:\nTurn-taking is generally smooth with appropriate pauses. There are brief, acceptable overlaps (e.g., around 00:14 when B interrupts, and 00:31 when B says \"Oh, that's cool\"). However, there is a significant pause between 00:32 and 00:42, which lasts for approximately 10 seconds. This pause exceeds the 5-second limit specified in the criteria, indicating an issue with interactional fluency.\n\nConclusion: Interactional Fluency is poor due to the prolonged pause.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--657.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--657",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "thought\nThe user wants me to evaluate a two-person dialogue based on Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\n\nI need to listen to the audio and analyse:\n1. **Response Relevance**: Are the responses logical, accurate, and relevant to the previous speaker's turn?\n2. **Interactional Fluency**: Is the turn-taking smooth? Are there long pauses (over 5s) or significant overlaps (over 2s)? Brief pauses and overlaps are acceptable.\n\nAfter the analysis, I need to provide:\n1. `` block with the analysis and reasoning for relevance.\n2. `` block with the analysis and reasoning for fluency.\n3. `` (1 or 2) based on the combined evaluation.\n\n**Dialogue Breakdown:**\n- A asks if B wants to go for a run. (Relevant, initiates topic)\n- B asks when. (Relevant, asks for detail)\n- A suggests soon, specifies 6 o'clock. (Relevant, provides detail)\n- A asks if 6 o'clock sounds good, or...? (Relevant, seeks confirmation/alternative)\n- B interrupts/overlaps slightly, asks if the weather will be good. (Relevant, raises a valid concern)\n- B states they don't want to get caught in the rain. (Relevant, explains concern)\n- A checks the forecast, confirms it should be clear. (Relevant, addresses concern)\n- A reiterates the 6 o'clock question. (Relevant, brings back to the time)\n- B says they could probably do that. (Relevant, confirms possibility)\n- B says they'll have to take a quick shower before. (Relevant, adds a logistical point)\n- A overlaps slightly, reminds B to bring water. (Relevant, adds a practical suggestion)\n- A explains why (stay hydrated). (Relevant, explains suggestion)\n- B confirms they'll remember. (Relevant, acknowledges suggestion)\n- B repeats \"but I'll have to take a quick shower before\". (Relevant, but slightly repetitive, however, it seems like a slight glitch or rephrasing, not a major issue.)\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n- All responses are relevant to the conversation topic (going for a run, time, weather, preparation).\n- Speakers answer questions and address concerns directly.\n- The flow of information is logical.\n- The final statement from B is slightly repetitive but still relevant.\n\n**Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\n- Turn-taking is generally smooth.\n- There are a couple of brief overlaps (B asking about weather over A's 'or...?', A reminding about water over B mentioning shower). These are short and seem natural, not disruptive.\n- There are no noticeable long pauses (over 5s).\n\n**Conclusion:**\n- Response Relevance is good.\n- Interactional Fluency is good, with only minor, non-disruptive overlaps.\n- Therefore, the dialogue is excellent.\n\n**Score:** 2\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant and logical. Speaker A initiates a suggestion and provides details. Speaker B raises a valid concern about the weather, which Speaker A addresses directly. They then discuss the proposed time and logistical details like taking a shower and bringing water. The interaction flows naturally from topic to topic within the context of planning the run.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. Turn-taking is generally smooth. There are a couple of brief overlaps (e.g., B asking about the weather while A is finishing their sentence, A suggesting bringing water while B is speaking). These overlaps are short and do not significantly disrupt the flow of conversation, appearing more like natural simultaneous speech than prolonged interruptions. There are no long pauses detected.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--402.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--402",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are mostly relevant and logical. Speaker A introduces the topic, and Speaker B responds with related information about applying to be an exhibit. Speaker A reacts naturally and asks a relevant follow-up question. Speaker B then asks a question about the timing. Speaker A answers this question appropriately. There is a slight moment of awkwardness where Speaker B says \"you got in\" after Speaker A asks how Speaker B found out about the opportunity (around 0:23-0:24). This response doesn't directly answer A's question and feels slightly out of place, perhaps a misunderstanding or misphrased statement. However, the conversation quickly recovers and continues logically with the next turn. This minor stumble does not constitute a significant issue in overall relevance.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. Turn-taking is smooth with no noticeable prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds) between turns. There are also no significant overlaps (over 2 seconds) where speakers talk over each other for extended periods. There are brief, natural overlaps and short pauses typical of spontaneous conversation, but these do not impede the flow or understanding.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--622.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--622",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in this dialogue are highly relevant. Speaker A introduces the topic (Plato's Republic), and Speaker B engages directly by asking about A's favorite part. Speaker A's response details a specific concept from the book (ideal state structure, balance of liberties and responsibilities). Speaker B follows up with a relevant clarifying question about the philosopher king and its relation to the mentioned balance. Speaker A answers this question and further elaborates on the concept. Speaker B then introduces a relevant challenge or perspective (realism of the philosopher king today), which Speaker A acknowledges and discusses, suggesting further conversation. Each turn builds logically on the previous one, demonstrating excellent response relevance.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good. Turn-taking is smooth with no awkward or prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds). There is a brief overlap around the 0:16 mark where Speaker B interrupts, but it is short and seems natural for an interruption in conversation, well under the 2-second threshold specified as harmful. The overall pace feels natural and allows the speakers to exchange ideas effectively.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--492.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--492",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are highly relevant to the topic of post-structuralism and Michel Foucault, which was introduced by Speaker A. Speaker B asks a relevant question about the topic initially, and although cut off, then offers a specific book by Foucault, demonstrating engagement and knowledge related to the subject. Speaker A's final question is also relevant, seeking clarification on Speaker B's specific interest within the topic. The dialogue maintains logical consistency, building upon the initial subject matter.\n\n\n\nThe interaction generally flows well with appropriate turn-taking. There are no prolonged pauses exceeding 5 seconds or significant overlaps of 2 seconds or more. There is a brief overlap at 00:08 where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B, but Speaker A immediately acknowledges this (\"Sorry to cut you off\"). According to the provided guidelines, brief overlaps are acceptable, and this one is short and less than 2 seconds, falling into that category. The rest of the turns are smoothly exchanged.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2195.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2195",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A praises Speaker B's achievement, Speaker B responds with gratitude, Speaker A mentions attending the event, Speaker B asks relevant follow-up questions about which events were watched, and Speaker A answers the question and elaborates. Speaker B's final interjection, while interrupting, is relevant to the overall topic of athletes and performance under pressure. There are no instances of off-topic or nonsensical responses.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is poor. There is a significant pause (>5s) between Speaker B's question \"Which events did you watch?\" and Speaker A's response. There is also a significant overlap/interruption where Speaker B begins speaking over Speaker A while Speaker A is mid-sentence (starting around 0:29 and lasting briefly). Although the audio cuts off shortly after, these two issues (long pause and interruption/overlap) negatively impact the smoothness of the turn-taking.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2068.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2068",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe speakers engage in a conversation about World War I. Speaker B's initial response identifies the topic they are studying, which is directly relevant to Speaker A's question. Speaker A then provides context about their experience, which is relevant to discussing the topic. Speaker B asks a relevant follow-up question about Speaker A's experience. Speaker A provides information about a specific military concept/unit, which is relevant to the topic of WWI strategies. Speaker B responds with interest and asks another relevant question about WWI strategies. Speaker A attempts to provide another strategy. Speaker B's final response questions the validity of the information provided, which is a relevant reaction. While some of the historical details provided by Speaker A might be factually questionable (e.g., 'Pincer movement' as a unit name, 'Flatt Thrower'), the responses themselves are logically consistent within the flow of the conversation and relevant to the dialogue's topic. The interaction maintains relevance.\n\n\n\nThe turn-taking is mostly smooth with appropriate pauses. However, there is a noticeable overlap starting around 00:25, where Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. This overlap lasts for approximately 2-3 seconds. According to the criteria, overlaps of 2 seconds or more are considered harmful and should be avoided for 'Excellent' fluency. This overlap constitutes a significant issue in interactional fluency based on the provided guidelines.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2148.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2148",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe interaction starts with a relevant exchange about Abraham Lincoln. Speaker A mentions his assassination, and Speaker B responds about his leadership. Speaker A then introduces information about Lincoln's family background, which is related to the historical figure being discussed, although it interrupts Speaker B's thought. However, Speaker A then makes a completely abrupt and irrelevant topic shift by asking about political leanings immediately after discussing Lincoln's ability to overcome his difficult background. This transition significantly breaks the flow of relevant conversation. While the subsequent discussion about political leanings is relevant within the new topic, the initiation of the topic was not relevant to what preceded it. This constitutes a significant issue in response relevance due to the jarring and unrelated topic change.\n\n\n\nThe interaction exhibits significant issues in interactional fluency. Speaker A interrupts Speaker B twice (\"Sorry to interrupt\" and \"Sorry, I\"). More critically, there are two prolonged pauses. There is a significant pause between 00:22 and 00:31, lasting approximately 9 seconds, which is well over the 5-second threshold for acceptable pauses. There is another pause between 00:37 and 00:42, which is around 5 seconds, meeting or slightly exceeding the threshold. These interruptions and long pauses disrupt the natural flow and smoothness of the conversation.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--415.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--415",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses from both speakers are highly relevant and logical throughout the dialogue. Speaker A initiates by asking for recommendations, and Speaker B responds appropriately by asking for preferences before offering suggestions. Speaker A's subsequent questions about the suggested movie (\"Birdman\") are directly addressed by Speaker B, including a clarifying question about its recency which is also answered. Speaker B then provides additional relevant recommendations (\"Gung Ho\" and \"Whiplash\"). Speaker A's final question about these new suggestions continues the logical flow of the conversation. There are no apparent inaccuracies or inconsistencies in the content exchanged.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. The turn-taking is smooth, with only a very brief overlap when Speaker A interrupts slightly to ask about the recency of \"Birdman\". This overlap is brief and sounds like a natural conversational interruption rather than a disruptive prolonged overlap (it is well under the 2-second threshold). There are no noticeable pauses exceeding 5 seconds. The conversation flows naturally and at a conversational pace.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--638.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--638",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are highly relevant throughout the dialogue. Speaker A asks about what Speaker B is reading, and B provides the requested information (book title). When A asks if it's good, B elaborates on their enjoyment. Speaker A then introduces a question about the book's intensity and themes, which B directly addresses. The conversation naturally transitions to the topic of reading while traveling, initiated by B and picked up by A. A's subsequent response about reading about unfamiliar places leads to agreement from B. Each turn logically follows the previous one, demonstrating strong relevance and logical consistency.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. Turn-taking is mostly smooth, without prolonged pauses over 5 seconds. There is a slight overlap at 0:35-0:37 where Speaker B begins speaking just as Speaker A is finishing, but this is brief and does not impede understanding. Speaker A also interrupts Speaker B at 0:11, acknowledging the interruption (\"Sorry to interrupt...\"), which, while an interruption, is brief and leads into a relevant question rather than causing a disruptive pause or long overlap. According to the criteria, brief overlaps and small pauses are acceptable, and there are no significant fluency issues like prolonged pauses or long overlaps (2 seconds or more).\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--538.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--538",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant. Speaker A initiates the request and asks relevant follow-up questions regarding price and fees. Speaker B acknowledges the request, asks for necessary information (amount, number of shares), addresses the question about the price by stating they can check, and confirms they can fulfill the request. The conversation logically progresses from the initial request to clarifying details needed to execute it. There are no logical inconsistencies.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is mostly smooth. There are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds). There are two instances where Speaker A slightly interrupts Speaker B (\"Sorry to jump in...\" at 0:08 and \"Actually...\" at 0:24), but these are brief and do not constitute long overlaps (over 2 seconds). The speakers take turns appropriately and the flow is generally natural for a conversation with slight interjections.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2319.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2319",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are generally relevant to the topic of Karl Marx and his ideas, with speaker B acknowledging the information about Marx's background and speaker A asking about the relevance of his ideas today. Speaker B's response about relevance and connecting back to the decline of capitalism is also relevant. However, the conversation has several abrupt shifts in topic, initiated by both speakers (from Marx's background to the decline of capitalism, then to personal feelings on his ideas, and finally a completely unrelated question about the future in 100 years). While individual turns might be relevant to the *immediately preceding* turn or the general theme, the overall flow lacks logical consistency and smooth progression.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is significantly impacted by two prolonged pauses (>5 seconds). The first pause occurs after speaker A interrupts speaker B and before speaker A continues their turn (approx. 0:18 - 0:27). The second prolonged pause occurs after speaker A asks about the relevance of Marx's ideas and before speaker B responds (approx. 0:36 - 0:40). There is a brief overlap at 0:17 which is acceptable as per the note. The presence of these long pauses indicates significant issues with the smoothness of turn-taking.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--534.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--534",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are generally relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A's initial question is answered directly by Speaker B. Speaker B introduces a new topic (hyperloop), and Speaker A asks a relevant clarifying question about it. Speaker B confirms and provides details, which Speaker A responds to positively and expands upon. Speaker B agrees and reacts. The only slight oddity is Speaker B's final question \"By the way, what were you saying earlier about the company building the hyperloop?\", as Speaker B was the one who initially mentioned the company building the hyperloop. This is a minor point in an otherwise relevant and coherent exchange, and doesn't represent a significant breakdown in understanding or relevance.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is consistently appropriate and natural throughout the dialogue. Turn-taking is smooth, with no disruptive prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds) or overlaps (2 seconds or more). The conversation flows easily between the two speakers.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 4,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2142.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2142",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are consistently relevant and logical. Speaker A introduces the topic of growing herbs and asks for suggestions. Speaker B asks a crucial clarifying question (indoors vs. outdoors) that directly impacts the suggestions. Speaker A answers this question and provides examples of suitable herbs. Speaker B then asks a relevant follow-up question about one of the herbs mentioned, and Speaker A provides a relevant comparison. The content flows logically and addresses the user's initial query and subsequent clarifications.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency has significant issues. There is a noticeable overlap around the 0:28 mark where Speaker B cuts off Speaker A mid-sentence. More critically, there is a prolonged pause of approximately 10-11 seconds between Speaker A finishing their turn (around 0:28/0:29) and Speaker B starting their next turn (at 0:39). This pause is well over the 5-second threshold specified in the criteria and severely disrupts the flow of the conversation.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--427.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--427",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in this dialogue are consistently relevant and logical. Speaker A initiates the conversation and then follows up with questions directly related to Speaker B's work context (hospital) and the topic of COVID, which is highly relevant for someone working in healthcare. Speaker B provides relevant information about the hospital situation, the general outlook on COVID, and confirms details about vaccination. Speaker A's interruptions, while affecting fluency, are topically relevant questions that build on B's previous points (asking about variants after B mentions the grim news, asking about vaccination status after B mentions being lucky to get vaccinated). The conversation flows logically from general pleasantries to specific health topics.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. Turn-taking is quick, and there are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds). There are two instances where Speaker A briefly overlaps with Speaker B (around 00:21 and 00:41), but these overlaps are very short (less than 1 second) and do not cause significant disruption or make the audio harmful according to the evaluation notes (\"Small pauses and brief overlaps in audio are acceptable\"). Speaker A's interruptions are on-topic and immediately followed by a relevant question, indicating a willingness to engage quickly rather than a breakdown in turn-taking. Overall, the flow feels natural and efficient.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--455.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--455",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe speakers maintain good response relevance throughout the dialogue. Speaker A initiates the conversation with a direct question, and Speaker B provides a direct answer and elaboration. Speaker A follows up with relevant questions seeking clarification on specific points made by B. Speaker B responds directly to these questions (e.g., listing the 'effects' and explaining the 'better off without you' comment). The conversation stays on topic, moving from the initial question about liking kids to the reasons behind B's feelings. There are no significant irrelevancies or inconsistencies. Speaker B's final turn includes a slight shift back to an earlier point made by Speaker A after answering the immediate question, which is a little disjointed but still understandable within the context of the conversation flow.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is smooth, with appropriate timing between speakers. There are no noticeable long pauses (over 5 seconds). There is a very brief overlap when Speaker A interrupts to ask for clarification at 0:11, but this is very short (less than 1 second) and acceptable in natural conversation, not a prolonged overlap (over 2 seconds). The dialogue flows naturally without awkward hesitations or disruptive overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--580.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--580",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are generally relevant to the topic of buying a new computer. Speaker B suggests a Macbook and then refurbished models in response to Speaker A's stated need and budget constraint. Speaker A discusses price and brings up a specific model. Speaker B comments on a potential feature and performance. The responses logically follow the conversational thread, although there is a slight stutter/incomplete thought from Speaker B at 0:22 and Speaker A's transition at 0:37 feels a bit abrupt. Speaker B's final offer at 0:41 is a direct response to the question \"Do you have this model?\", though perhaps an unexpected one in context. Overall, the core content of the interaction is relevant and logical.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. Speakers A and B take turns appropriately without significant pauses (over 5 seconds) or prolonged overlaps (over 2 seconds). There is a slight overlap at the beginning of Speaker B's turn at 0:07, but it is brief and natural. The flow of the conversation is smooth in terms of turn-taking timing.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2017.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2017",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are generally relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A's initial questions about Speaker B's day and work are appropriate follow-ups. Speaker B's explanation about being a lawyer with a new position and schedule adjustments directly addresses the questions. Speaker A's follow-up question about managing the adjustment is also relevant. Speaker B then shifts the topic by asking Speaker A about their work, which is a natural conversational transition. The only minor point of less direct relevance is when Speaker B asks A what they do for work, and A responds with a general comment about people struggling to find jobs, rather than stating their own profession. However, B manages to pick up on the theme of enjoying work in their subsequent turn. Overall, Response Relevance is mostly appropriate and does not present significant issues.\n\n\n\nInteractional Fluency in this dialogue is mostly smooth with appropriate turn-taking and minimal brief overlaps. However, there is a notable prolonged pause within Speaker A's turns. After Speaker B finishes speaking at around 0:18, Speaker A starts with an interjection (\"That sounds...\"). This is followed by a pause from roughly 0:20 until 0:29, where Speaker A completes their sentence and asks a question. This approximately 9-second pause significantly exceeds the 5-second threshold for a harmful prolonged pause, disrupting the natural flow of the conversation. While other turns are smooth, this long pause represents a significant issue in Interactional Fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2958.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2958",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates good response relevance. Speaker A initiates by asking about dog food, which leads to a discussion about pets. Speaker B transitions the topic to cats, and Speaker A provides relevant information and tips about cats. Speaker B then asks a specific question about cat safety, and Speaker A provides relevant advice. The conversation flows logically from a general pet topic to a more specific one about cat care and safety, with each turn building upon the previous one.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is significantly impacted by a harmful overlap and a prolonged pause. At approximately 0:25, Speaker B begins to speak but is interrupted and overlapped by Speaker A, who continues their previous turn. This leads to Speaker B being cut off. Following this interruption, there is a prolonged pause from approximately 0:26 to 0:36, which is longer than 5 seconds and disrupts the flow of the conversation before Speaker B continues their interrupted thought.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--678.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--678",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant to the conversation flow. Speaker A introduces the topic of trying new recipes, and Speaker B asks relevant clarifying questions about the recipes. Although Speaker B interrupts Speaker A to ask about mashed potato tips, this interruption is directly related to a dish Speaker A just mentioned. Speaker A handles this well by acknowledging the question but first finishing their point about other recipes. The conversation then naturally, if slightly tangentially, moves from specific recipes to general cooking habits, cooking companions, and favorite dishes. Each turn builds logically upon the previous one, maintaining coherence within the broader theme of cooking.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth, with minimal pauses between speakers. There is a brief, polite interruption by Speaker B (at 0:18), but it is handled appropriately and does not disrupt the flow significantly. There is one minor overlap (around 0:50), but it is very brief and typical of natural conversation, well under the 2-second threshold. There are no noticeable long pauses (over 5 seconds) that would hinder the interaction.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2249.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2249",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant and logical. Speaker A asks a question, and Speaker B provides a direct answer and then asks a clarifying question. Speaker A then explains their situation, and Speaker B offers relevant advice and poses relevant considerations (like wall space). The conversation progresses naturally from a general topic (window renovation) to a specific problem Speaker A is facing and potential solutions. There are no instances of off-topic responses or logical inconsistencies.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency has significant issues. While most turn-taking is smooth, there is a very long pause (approximately 11 seconds) between Speaker B finishing their sentence at 0:38 and Speaker A responding at 0:49. This prolonged silence significantly disrupts the natural flow of the conversation, exceeding the acceptable limit of 5 seconds. There might also be a brief overlap around 0:38 based on the timing, but the long pause is the primary issue impacting fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--405.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--405",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are relevant to the conversation flow. Speaker A introduces the topic of bee colony collapse, and Speaker B provides information related to it, including potential causes like pesticides. The conversation then naturally transitions to a personal anecdote about bees (bee stings), which is also relevant to the broader topic. Speakers respond directly to each other's points and questions. The information provided about colony collapse disorder and pesticides seems accurate and logically consistent within the context of the discussion.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are no noticeable long pauses exceeding 5 seconds or significant overlaps longer than 2 seconds. Speaker A briefly interrupts Speaker B at 0:18, but this is a short overlap and feels like a natural interjection rather than a disruptive prolonged overlap. Turn-taking is smooth for the majority of the dialogue, contributing to a natural conversational rhythm.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2284.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2284",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses from both speakers are consistently relevant and contribute to the development of the conversation. Speaker A introduces a topic (Jungian psychology and the collective unconscious), and Speaker B asks relevant clarifying questions (\"Did you learn anything specific?\", \"Collective, what's that?\", \"Do you mean like shared experiences or something deeper?\", \"What's an example?\"). Speaker A provides relevant answers and an example. The dialogue flows logically from introduction to definition, clarification, and example. Response relevance is excellent.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is generally good with smooth turn-taking, however, there is a significant pause. After Speaker A explains the collective unconscious (up to 00:26), Speaker B starts with \"Wait,\" then has a long pause (about 11 seconds) before finishing their question (\"Do you mean like shared experiences or something deeper?\" from 00:37-00:39). Although this pause is largely within Speaker B's turn, it is a pause over 5 seconds and disrupts the natural flow of the dialogue. There is a brief overlap around 00:26, but it is not prolonged (less than 2 seconds). Due to the prolonged pause (> 5s), interactional fluency is poor.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 6,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2273.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2273",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are generally relevant to the conversation topic of going out for pizza. Speaker B's questions about the nature of the deal (all-you-can-eat) and its value are direct follow-ups to Speaker A's invitation. Speaker A's explanations and justifications are relevant responses to Speaker B's queries. The final question from Speaker B about ordering and sharing is slightly less directly connected to the preceding discussion of an all-you-can-eat price per person, but it still relates to the practicalities of eating together at a restaurant. Overall, the responses maintain logical consistency and relevance throughout most of the exchange.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is impacted by a noticeable overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B around the 0:14-0:16 mark, where Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still describing the deal. This overlap lasts for more than 2 seconds, which the instructions state is harmful and should be avoided for good fluency. Aside from this, turn-taking is relatively smooth with no prolonged pauses observed. However, the significant overlap prevents the fluency from being consistently appropriate and natural.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--569.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--569",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe speakers consistently respond relevantly to each other's statements and questions. They discuss video games, segue into discussing reading, and share information about specific books and authors. Speaker B's response at 0:19, relating not having played Call of Duty to having recently started Red Dead Redemption (another game they hadn't played), is a logical connection. The conversation flows naturally from one topic to the next, and each speaker's contributions are understood and addressed by the other.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. Turn-taking is smooth, with no significant pauses over 5 seconds. There is a brief overlap at 0:10 where Speaker B interrupts politely to ask a question, and another brief overlap at 0:19 as Speaker B responds quickly to Speaker A's point. These brief overlaps are natural in conversation and do not hinder understanding. The dialogue feels like a natural chat between two people. The loud hum at the very end appears to be an audio artifact rather than a fluency issue within the spoken interaction itself.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2062.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2062",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nSpeaker B fails to respond to Speaker A's initial question at the beginning of the dialogue, instead introducing a new topic. Speaker B also introduces the topic of gynecology abruptly later in the conversation with the phrase \"I love gynecology too,\" implying a shared field that hadn't been established by Speaker B, impacting logical consistency. While Speaker A's responses are relevant to Speaker B's questions, the lack of relevance and abrupt topic changes from Speaker B indicate significant issues in Response Relevance for the interaction as a whole.\n\n\n\nThere is a significant pause of approximately 10 seconds between Speaker A's first question (ending at 0:04) and Speaker B's response (starting at 0:14). This prolonged pause is well over the 5-second threshold and indicates a significant issue with Interactional Fluency. There are no prolonged overlaps (> 2s) in the provided segment.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--508.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--508",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is excellent. Speaker A introduces the topic of basket making, and Speaker B responds appropriately by acknowledging it and asking a relevant follow-up question about how Speaker A got interested. Speaker A provides a direct and relevant answer, explaining seeing baskets at a fair. Speaker B then offers relevant suggestions (taking a class, finding a tutorial) based on Speaker A's stated interest in learning. Speaker A responds by acknowledging the suggestions and indicating they will consider them. Each turn builds logically on the previous one, making the conversation coherent and relevant throughout. There are no irrelevant answers or non-sequiturs.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is also excellent. The speakers exhibit smooth turn-taking with no noticeable long pauses (over 5 seconds) or significant overlaps (over 2 seconds). The rhythm of the conversation feels natural, like a typical back-and-forth exchange. The short pauses and minimal overlaps that might exist in the audio are well within the acceptable range for natural speech and do not impede communication or flow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--679.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--679",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant to the ongoing conversation about cooking and recipes. Speaker B directly answers Speaker A's initial question about trying a recipe and identifies the type of recipe. Speaker A shares their own related experience with omelets, which is relevant to B's stated recipe. Speaker B acknowledges this and then circles back to clarify Speaker A's original question, maintaining relevance to the overall topic. The flow is logical and the information exchanged is pertinent.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is smooth throughout the dialogue, with no noticeable pauses exceeding 5 seconds or overlaps lasting 2 seconds or more. The transitions between speakers are natural and conversational, contributing to a comfortable listening experience.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2002.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2002",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A explains the need to end the call and clarifies the reason, while Speaker B responds appropriately by asking if everything is okay, suggesting rescheduling, and confirming their own availability and intent to call back. The dialogue flows naturally in terms of content.\n\n\n\nThe interaction starts with smooth turn-taking and acceptable brief overlap. However, there is a significant break in fluency between approximately 0:21 and 0:31, where there is a long pause (around 10 seconds) after Speaker B starts a sentence before completing it. This prolonged pause exceeds the 5-second limit specified in the criteria and constitutes a significant disruption to the interactional flow.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--598.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--598",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are generally relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A initiates the topic of Vichy France and WWII, and Speaker B responds by mentioning a college course they took on the subject. Speaker A then asks about the favorite part of the course. Speaker B briefly interrupts to ask a related question about Vichy France's impact on the population, which is a slight deviation but still related to the overall topic. Speaker A handles this well by acknowledging the question and then redirecting back to their original question about the favorite part of the course. Speaker B answers this question, and the conversation smoothly transitions to visiting places related to WWII, followed by a discussion about food during Speaker B's trip to Japan. There are no significant inaccuracies or illogical turns in the conversation.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. The turn-taking is smooth, with no noticeable prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds). While Speaker B says \"Sorry to jump in\" at one point, implying a possible brief overlap or interruption, there are no sustained overlaps lasting 2 seconds or more in the audio. The pace and rhythm of the conversation feel natural and conversational.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2194.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2194",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates good response relevance. Speakers ask questions and provide answers that are logically connected to the preceding turns. The conversation flows from discussing general well-being and fitness activities to a specific health issue (back pain) and its treatment. Even when speaker B interrupts speaker A and there is a pause, speaker B's subsequent question is still relevant to the topic of back pain, and speaker A successfully redirects back to their original question, which speaker B then answers. The content of the interaction is relevant and coherent.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is problematic due to a prolonged pause. While initial turn-taking is relatively smooth, there is a significant pause of approximately 10 seconds between 00:43 and 00:53 after speaker B cuts off speaker A. This pause exceeds the acceptable limit of 5 seconds and disrupts the flow of the conversation, indicating a significant issue with interactional fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--500.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--500",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are highly relevant and logical. Speaker A asks about dinner, and Speaker B answers directly with what they are making. Speaker A reacts positively and asks a relevant follow-up question about the recipe origin. Speaker B answers this question directly. The conversation flows naturally from topic to sub-topic within the context of dinner.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is smooth with no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds). There appears to be a brief overlap between Speaker B's first turn and Speaker A's second turn around the 0:06 mark, but it is short (less than 2 seconds) and acceptable within the criteria, representing natural conversational turn-taking. The pause between Speaker A's second turn and Speaker B's second turn is also brief (around 1 second).\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 4,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2851.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2851",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are consistently relevant throughout the dialogue. Speaker A initiates the conversation with a clear purpose (a survey about carpentry). Speaker B's responses directly address A's questions about what they are looking to build, including details about the deck, seating area, fire pit, and desired style. Speaker A asks relevant follow-up questions about the purpose of the seating and the need for professional help, which are based on B's previous statements. The conversation flows logically from identifying the project to discussing details, style, and execution plans. There are no irrelevant or contradictory statements.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency has some issues. Turn-taking is mostly smooth, with only a brief, acceptable overlap around 0:13-0:14. However, there is a significant prolonged pause between speaker B finishing their turn at 0:36 and speaker A starting their turn at 0:46. This pause is approximately 10 seconds long, which is well over the acceptable limit and disrupts the natural flow of the conversation. While other pauses are brief and acceptable, this extended silence indicates a problem with interactional fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--430.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--430",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Speaker A's initial question about school leads Speaker B to discuss Karl Marx. Speaker A then asks a direct follow-up question about belief in Marxism, which Speaker B answers. Speaker A seeks clarification on the influence of Marxism, and Speaker B provides relevant details. Speaker B then introduces the topic of philosophy, and Speaker A follows up by asking about a favorite philosopher. Speaker B answers this question and then offers a relevant compliment. The conversation flows logically and each turn is a direct and appropriate response to the previous one, maintaining topic coherence.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is also excellent. Turn-taking is smooth and natural. There are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds). While there are a couple of very brief overlaps (e.g., around 0:12 and 0:31), these are very short and typical of natural conversation, not disruptive or prolonged. The dialogue maintains a good pace throughout.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--682.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--682",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains good response relevance throughout. Speaker A asks about driving, and Speaker B explains why they don't drive and use public transportation. Speaker A challenges this, citing inconvenience, and Speaker B counters with cost savings and convenience. They discuss the pros and cons of cars vs. public transport, focusing on cost and maintenance. The conversation flows logically from one point to the next, with each speaker responding directly to the other's claims. There are no off-topic remarks or logical inconsistencies in the arguments presented by each speaker regarding their preferred mode of transport.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. Turn-taking is mostly smooth, with minimal hesitation or prolonged pauses. There are a few very brief, natural-sounding overlaps (e.g., around 0:17-0:18 and 0:40-0:41), which are typical in natural conversation and do not impede understanding or flow. There are no significant pauses (over 5 seconds) or long overlaps (over 2 seconds). The rhythm of the conversation feels natural and engaging.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2816.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2816",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant and maintain logical consistency. Speaker A introduces a book based on a show, Speaker B recognizes the author and asks a relevant question about the book's tone. Speaker A answers and then transitions to another book by the same author, which is a logical continuation. Speaker B responds appropriately to this new topic and asks for an opinion. Speaker A provides the requested opinion and a related piece of advice. Finally, Speaker B shifts the topic back to the original show, asking about characters, which is also relevant within the context of the initial discussion. The conversation flows naturally through related topics without any irrelevant or nonsensical responses.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is significantly impacted by a prolonged pause. While there are some brief, acceptable overlaps (e.g., around 0:29) and short pauses, there is a substantial pause between approximately 0:30 and 0:40, which is around 10 seconds. This pause exceeds the 5-second threshold and disrupts the natural flow of the conversation. There is another pause around 0:42-0:46 (approx 4 seconds) which is close to the limit. The long pause after Speaker A's comment about the book being dark is a clear fluency issue.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--606.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--606",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are generally relevant to the conversation flow. Speaker B answers Speaker A's initial question and introduces a new topic (Rolling Stones), asking a question. Speaker A then interrupts (and acknowledges it) to bring up a related point about the Rolling Stones. Speaker B responds to A's point, acknowledges A's previous question, and asks another related question. Speaker A responds to B's new question but then unusually repeats the question B asked earlier about the Rolling Stones' future performance. While the repetition of the question is a bit unnatural, the responses throughout are logically connected to the ongoing topic.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. Turn-taking is smooth with no significant pauses over 5 seconds. There is a brief overlap/interruption by Speaker A at the 0:09 mark, but it is explicitly acknowledged (\"Sorry to interrupt\") and is not prolonged (less than 1 second). There are no other noticeable prolonged overlaps (over 2 seconds). The pacing feels natural for a dialogue.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--656.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--656",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are highly relevant throughout the dialogue. The conversation flows logically from greetings to discussing gardening, specific plants (succulents, herbs), activities related to gardening (baking, potpourri), challenges (weeds), solutions to challenges, preferences (indoor vs. outdoor), and even the logistical aspect of transporting plants. Each speaker builds upon the previous turn, demonstrating good comprehension and engagement with the topic.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is smooth with very few, brief overlaps (e.g., around 0:23 and 0:47), which are typical of natural conversation and well under the 2-second threshold. There are no noticeable prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds). The rhythm of the conversation feels natural and easy-flowing.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 6,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--481.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--481",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are generally relevant and follow a logical progression. Speaker A asks about gifts, Speaker B answers and gives an example, Speaker A asks for details, Speaker B provides details, which leads to a discussion about the gift (a speaker) and then music, which is related to a speaker. There is a topic shift to tennis initiated by Speaker A, which Speaker B responds to directly. Speaker A seeks clarification, and Speaker B responds to the clarification. The final pivot to offering to show Speaker A around NYC is slightly less directly connected but serves as a conversational closing or alternative suggestion. The conversation maintains coherence throughout, with speakers addressing each other's points.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are no long pauses exceeding 5 seconds. There are brief overlaps at points (e.g., around 00:15 and 00:38) but they are short (less than 1-2 seconds) and typical of natural conversation, not prolonged or disruptive. The turn-taking is smooth and allows the conversation to flow naturally.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2956.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2956",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows from the previous one. Speaker A asks about homework, Speaker B answers. Speaker A offers help, Speaker B acknowledges the offer and then transitions smoothly to a new, but related, topic (games). The responses are accurate and consistent with the flow of a casual conversation between two people.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is mostly good, with appropriate turn-taking. However, there is a clear issue with a disruptive overlap/interruption that occurs between 00:08 and 00:09, where Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still talking, cutting them off. This significant overlap disrupts the natural flow of the conversation and is a noticeable fluency problem according to the criteria. There is also a pause of about 3 seconds between Speaker A's offer (00:24) and Speaker B's response (00:27), but this falls within the acceptable limit (under 5s). The main issue is the overlap.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2084.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2084",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A initiates the conversation with a direct question about Vichy France. Speaker B provides a clear and accurate definition, highlighting its status as a puppet government and its pro-Nazi policies. Speaker A then asks a relevant clarifying question about the nature of the \"pro-Nazi\" stance (active support vs. survival), which shows engagement and a desire for deeper understanding. Speaker B answers this nuanced question effectively, acknowledging both aspects. The conversation then naturally transitions to the French public's reaction, with A anticipating resistance and B confirming and elaborating on it. Finally, A asks about the lasting impact and sentiment, and B provides a relevant answer based on historical understanding. The flow of information is logical, and each response builds upon the previous turn, maintaining a focused and informative discussion about the topic. There are no irrelevant or contradictory statements.\n\n\n\nThe interaction starts with relatively smooth turn-taking. There is a brief, acceptable overlap at 00:32 as Speaker A begins speaking just as Speaker B finishes their question. However, there is a significant issue with a prolonged pause occurring from approximately 00:34 to 00:42. This pause is about 8 seconds long, which is well over the 5-second threshold defined as harmful to fluency. Speaker A starts a sentence (\"I think there was a...\") and then stops, followed by this extended silence before completing the thought. While the turn-taking is fine after this pause, this single, lengthy silence severely disrupts the natural flow and rhythm of the conversation, indicating a significant issue with interactional fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 4,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2871.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2871",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nSpeaker A asks for advice on which stock is a better buy. Speaker B responds by mentioning Apple as popular but then slightly pivots to ask about A's opinion on Apple's new products, which is related but not a direct answer to the \"better buy\" question. Speaker A then interrupts and brings the conversation back to Apple by asking about the impact of product launches on stock performance, which is highly relevant to the original topic and B's mention of Apple. Speaker B's subsequent responses are relevant and logical within the context of discussing Apple stock. Despite a slight initial diversion by B and an interruption by A, the conversation stays focused on the core topic of stock evaluation, specifically for Apple. The responses are generally relevant and logically consistent.\n\n\n\nThere are notable issues with interactional fluency. There is a significant overlap/interruption at 0:08 where Speaker A cuts off Speaker B. Following this interruption, there is a very long pause (over 10 seconds) from 0:09 to 0:19 before Speaker A continues. This prolonged pause is a major disruption to the flow of the conversation. There are other shorter, acceptable pauses between other turns. However, the long pause and interruption significantly detract from the smoothness of the interaction.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--450.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--450",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "878thought\nThe user wants me to evaluate a two-person interactional dialogue based on Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\n\nI need to listen to the audio provided and analyze:\n1. **Response Relevance**: Are the responses accurate and logically consistent with the previous turn?\n2. **Interactional Fluency**: Is the turn-taking smooth? Are there long pauses (over 5s) or significant overlaps (over 2s)?\n\nThen, I need to provide a `` section, a `` section, and an `` (1 for Poor, 2 for Excellent).\n\n**Dialogue Analysis:**\n\n* **A (0:00):** \"Have you read any of Shakespeare's plays?\" - Clear, relevant question.\n* **B (0:02):** \"Nope. I don't really enjoy reading much.\" - Direct answer, relevant explanation.\n* **A (0:05):** \"Interesting. Have you seen any of the adaptations?\" - Relevant follow-up question based on B not reading.\n* **B (0:09):** \"Um, I remember my English teacher reading some of them to the class. It was kind of boring yet...\" - Relevant answer, provides context.\n* **A (0:13):** \"Sorry to cut in. But when your teacher read to the class, did you find it more engaging than reading on your own?\" - Relevant follow-up question, clarifies B's previous statement. Acknowledge interruption is good.\n* **B (0:20):** \"It was kind of weird, but yeah, a bit more engaging. Here is a really interesting film called Hamlet. It's a modern adaptation...\" - Direct answer to the question, then introduces a related topic (adaptations). Relevant transition.\n* **A (0:27):** \"Oh, I love modern adaptations. Do you think it captures the essence of the original play well?\" - Enthusiastic response to B's suggestion, relevant follow-up question about the specific adaptation.\n* **B (0:33):** \"I recommend it. You'll have to check it out.\" - Answers the implicit question of whether it's good/captures the essence well by recommending it. Relevant conclusion to the mini-discussion on Hamlet adaptation.\n\n**Response Relevance Assessment:**\nAll turns are relevant. Speaker A asks about reading Shakespeare, Speaker B answers and explains they don't read much. Speaker A asks about adaptations, Speaker B provides an example (teacher reading), Speaker A asks for clarification, Speaker B clarifies and suggests a film adaptation. Speaker A responds positively and asks about the film's quality, Speaker B recommends it. The conversation flows logically, and each response directly addresses or builds upon the previous turn. Accuracy seems fine based on the conversation content.\n\n**Interactional Fluency Assessment:**\n* 0:00 - 0:02: Smooth turn-taking.\n* 0:02 - 0:05: Smooth turn-taking.\n* 0:05 - 0:09: Smooth turn-taking.\n* 0:09 - 0:13: Speaker B speaking.\n* 0:13: Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. A acknowledges the interruption (\"Sorry to cut in\"). The interruption is very brief, overlapping only slightly with the very end of B's utterance. This is a minor, natural overlap, not a prolonged one.\n* 0:14 - 0:20: Speaker A speaking.\n* 0:20 - 0:27: Speaker B speaking. No long pauses before or after.\n* 0:27 - 0:33: Speaker A speaking. No long pauses before or after.\n* 0:33 - 0:36: Speaker B speaking. No long pauses before or after.\n\nThere was one minor overlap (A interrupting B briefly at 0:13), but A acknowledged it, and it was not a prolonged overlap (less than 2 seconds). There are no long pauses (over 5 seconds). The turn-taking feels natural and conversational.\n\n**Overall Assessment:**\nResponse Relevance is excellent. Interactional Fluency is excellent, with only a brief, acknowledged overlap which is natural in conversation. Based on the criteria, this dialogue fits the description of \"Excellent\".\nThe responses in this dialogue are consistently relevant and logical. Speaker A initiates a topic (Shakespeare), and Speaker B provides a direct answer. The conversation then flows naturally to related sub-topics (adaptations, specific examples) based on previous responses. Each speaker builds on the other's contribution, asking clarifying questions or introducing relevant points. There are no instances of off-topic responses or logical inconsistencies.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is smooth, with minimal delays between speakers. There are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds). There is one brief overlap at 0:13 when Speaker A interrupts Speaker B, but A immediately acknowledges the interruption (\"Sorry to cut in\"). This brief, acknowledged overlap is a natural feature of conversational speech and does not significantly hinder fluency. There are no other noticeable overlaps or long pauses.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--651.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--651",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Speaker A initiates the conversation by asking for music recommendations, and Speaker B provides relevant genres. Speaker A then asks for clarification on a specific genre (Reggae) and requests specific recommendations, to which Speaker B responds with a concrete artist and album. Speaker B attempts to transition to another genre (Punk Rock), and Speaker A acknowledges this but asks a relevant follow-up question about the previously mentioned artist (touring dates). Speaker B answers this question and then successfully transitions back to providing a Punk Rock recommendation. The turns are logically connected, and the participants effectively manage the flow and topic shifts.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth, with no noticeable pauses exceeding the 5-second limit. There is a brief overlap at 0:18 where Speaker A interjects with \"Sorry, I just got really excited,\" but this overlap is short (less than 2 seconds) and represents a natural conversational occurrence rather than a disruptive issue. Overall, the rhythm and flow of the conversation are natural and easy to follow, demonstrating good fluency.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2767.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2767",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are mostly relevant and logical. Speaker A asks about children's ages, and Speaker B provides them. Speaker A then asks about the daughter sleeping through the night (relevant for a 2-month-old). Speaker B, perhaps misunderstanding or redirecting, jumps in to talk about the son and potty training. Speaker A accepts this redirection and the conversation proceeds logically on the topic of the son's potty training, relating experiences and discussing consistency. While Speaker B's initial response isn't a direct answer to Speaker A's question, it's a coherent turn that shifts the topic in a relevant direction given the context of parenting young children. There are no major logical inconsistencies.\n\n\n\nThe interaction has some minor overlaps which are acceptable. However, there is a prolonged pause lasting approximately 10 seconds (from 0:32 to 0:42) after Speaker B finishes speaking and before Speaker A takes the next turn. This pause is significantly longer than the 5-second threshold and disrupts the flow and smoothness of the conversation. There is also a less smooth overlap at 0:31 where Speaker A speaks over Speaker B to finish the sentence. The long pause constitutes a significant issue in interactional fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2982.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2982",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker B initiates the topic of depression, and Speaker A shares a personal connection. Speaker B asks relevant follow-up questions about managing the situation together and coping strategies. Speaker A provides answers that directly address these questions and elaborate on their experience. The conversation stays focused on the topic, and the turn-taking content makes sense within the flow of the dialogue.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is significantly impacted by several issues. There are notable instances of Speaker B interrupting Speaker A (at 00:08 and 00:24). Additionally, there is a prolonged pause of approximately 9 seconds between Speaker B's interrupted speech and the completion of their question (from roughly 00:25 to 00:34), which disrupts the natural flow of the conversation. While small pauses (like 00:10-00:14 and 00:37-00:41, which are around 4s) and brief overlaps are acceptable, the described interruptions and the prolonged pause indicate significant fluency problems according to the criteria.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--550.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--550",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker B's initial response clarifies the context of the Soviet Union, showing active listening and understanding. Speaker A then clarifies their personal experience relates specifically to Russia, which is a relevant correction to the discussion point. Subsequent turns directly follow from the previous speaker's statement or question, whether it's asking about the experience, challenges, or the local cuisine. The conversation flows logically from a general topic to a specific personal experience and then into details about that experience.\n\n\n\nBased on the structure of the provided transcript, the interaction appears fluent. Turns are clearly delineated, and the flow suggests smooth transitions between speakers. There are no explicit indicators within the text of prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds) or significant overlaps (over 2 seconds). Speaker A's phrase \"Sorry to cut in\" at 0:14 suggests a brief interruption, which is acceptable and often natural in conversation, rather than a prolonged, disruptive overlap. The subsequent turn-taking seems natural and responsive.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2841.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2841",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue exhibits good response relevance. Speaker A initiates the conversation about Mexico and planning a trip, and Speaker B responds directly to this, confirming they haven't been but want to go. Speaker A then follows up by asking about specific resorts and adding relevant advice about booking early due to crowds. Speaker B acknowledges this point, reiterates they haven't chosen resorts, and asks A for recommendations, keeping the conversation focused on the topic of planning the trip and finding resorts. Each turn builds logically on the previous one.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency has significant issues. There is a clear overlap/interruption around 00:09-00:10 where Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still talking. More critically, there is a prolonged pause between 00:11 and 00:18, lasting approximately 7 seconds. This long pause significantly disrupts the natural flow and smoothness of the interaction, falling well outside the acceptable limits defined in the instructions.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--536.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--536",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A introduces the topic of paddle boarding. Speaker B acknowledges it and asks a relevant question about its difficulty, building on Speaker A's description. Speaker A's response addresses the difficulty and also adds personal context (athleticism). Speaker B then asks a follow-up question based on Speaker A's earlier comment about the sun, showing attentive listening and continued engagement with the topic. Speaker A provides a relevant answer to this new question. Each turn builds upon the previous one, maintaining focus on the subject of paddle boarding. The flow of questions and answers demonstrates good relevance. (Note: The word \"Jiyangyaki\" at 0:23 appears out of place, but the rest of the sentence and the response are relevant to the conversation about trying the sport and athleticism).\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is smooth and natural throughout the dialogue. There are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds) that disrupt the conversation flow. There is a brief overlap at 0:14 where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A, but this overlap is short (less than 2 seconds) and common in natural conversation, falling within the acceptable limits outlined in the instructions. The timing of responses feels appropriate, making the dialogue easy to follow and natural-sounding.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2318.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2318",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe interaction starts with relevant greetings and a question about plans, which is answered directly. Speaker B's follow-up question about gear is relevant to Speaker A's statement about it being their first time hiking. Speaker A responds appropriately to the gear question. However, Speaker A then abruptly changes the topic to \"sort of sports.\" Speaker B repeats this question, which is slightly unnatural. More significantly, Speaker B then repeats the initial question \"What are you going to do tomorrow?\", despite Speaker A having already stated she is going hiking in Muir Woods and discussed it. Speaker A repeats the answer. After a long pause, Speaker B finally comments on Muir Woods again and offers advice. While the segments of conversation are internally relevant, the sudden topic changes and the repetition of already answered questions significantly disrupt the flow and logical consistency of the dialogue.\n\n\n\nThe turn-taking is generally smooth with brief, acceptable overlaps. However, there is a very long pause from approximately 00:48 to 00:58, lasting around 10 seconds. This prolonged pause is well over the 5-second threshold and significantly harms the interactional fluency. There are no overlaps longer than 2 seconds.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--562.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--562",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are relevant and logically consistent throughout the dialogue. Speaker A asks about how Speaker B approaches schoolwork, and Speaker B directly addresses this by stating they are struggling. Speaker A then offers a relevant suggestion (creating a study schedule) to help with this struggle. Speaker B acknowledges the suggestion and continues the conversation by asking for further tips, which is a logical next step in a discussion about managing schoolwork. The flow of the conversation is natural and on-topic.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is generally smooth. There are no long pauses exceeding 5 seconds. There is a brief overlap at the beginning of Speaker A's turn at approximately 00:12, where they interrupt Speaker B. However, this overlap is short and does not last for 2 seconds or more, and it is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker A (\"Sorry to interrupt...\"), making it a natural part of the conversation rather than a fluency issue. The turn-taking is otherwise smooth and responsive.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2028.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2028",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are generally relevant and follow a logical flow. The conversation starts with Speaker A discussing Siphonophores, which Speaker B acknowledges. Speaker A asks about a favorite marine animal. Speaker B interjects a related question about Siphonophores before Speaker A fully answers the first question, but this interjection is relevant to the earlier topic and Speaker B apologizes for jumping in. Speaker A then addresses Speaker B's interjection before returning to and answering the original question about favorite marine animals. The conversation smoothly transitions to other animals (pigs) and then to pets, with appropriate follow-up questions and answers. All questions asked are answered.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is mostly good with appropriate turn-taking and minimal, brief overlaps. However, there is one significant issue: a prolonged pause occurs between Speaker A's comment about pigs being affectionate (around 0:42) and Speaker B's follow-up question (\"What makes you say they're smart?\") (around 0:54). This pause lasts for approximately 10 seconds, which exceeds the allowed limit of 5 seconds and significantly disrupts the flow of the conversation. Other pauses and overlaps are brief and acceptable.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2165.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2165",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe response relevance has significant issues. Speaker A asks Speaker B if they have any *other* health issues after B mentioned back problems. Speaker B responds by talking about a friend with dyslexia who saw a chiropractor. This is not a direct answer to the question about Speaker B's own health issues. While Speaker A attempts to connect the friend's experience back to Speaker B's initial topic (back problems), Speaker B's subsequent response still focuses on the friend's outcome rather than confirming if Speaker B also tried or benefited from similar treatment for their back problems. This lack of direct relevance disrupts the logical flow of the conversation.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth and timely throughout the dialogue. There are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds) or noticeable overlaps (over 2 seconds) based on the provided timestamps and the natural flow of the conversation. The speakers transition between turns without hesitation or interruption.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 3,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2972.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2972",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe speakers are responding directly and logically to each other. Speaker A introduces the topic of studying a book for an exam. Speaker B acknowledges this and asks a relevant follow-up question about the focus of the study. Speaker A answers the question and then asks Speaker B what they are reading, which is a natural turn in the conversation. Speaker B then answers this question. The conversation maintains relevance throughout.\n\n\n\nThe interaction is mostly fluid with brief, acceptable interruptions (like Speaker B at 0:06). However, there is a significant pause between Speaker A's last utterance at 0:23 and Speaker B's response starting at 0:33. This pause is approximately 10 seconds long, which is a prolonged pause exceeding the 5-second threshold mentioned as harmful in the instructions. This long pause disrupts the natural flow of the conversation.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--417.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--417",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are highly relevant to the conversation topic of movie recommendations, specifically focusing on romantic comedies after speaker A states their preference. Speaker B asks for clarification (genre preference) which is a logical step in providing recommendations. Both speakers then suggest specific titles within the established genre and comment on each other's suggestions. The conversation flows logically from asking for recommendations to discussing specific films.\n\n\n\nThe turn-taking in the dialogue is smooth with minimal pauses between speakers. There is a very brief overlap at the start of speaker A's turn at 0:13, but it is well under the 2-second threshold and does not disrupt the flow. There are no prolonged pauses over 5 seconds. The interaction feels natural and conversational.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2837.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2837",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are generally relevant to the conversation. Speaker A expresses appreciation for Speaker B's advice on social media, and Speaker B clarifies which advice was helpful and offers further assistance through their business. Speaker A's request for tips on investing after mentioning budgeting hacks is also a relevant follow-up. While Speaker B's initial \"How can I help you?\" after Speaker A's \"That's cool\" feels a little abrupt, it's not entirely irrelevant in the context of someone potentially seeking advice. The core exchange about advice is logical and consistent.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency has significant issues. There is a clear interruption by Speaker B (\"Sorry to jump in\") which causes a long overlap with Speaker A's speech. Following this interruption, there is a very long pause (approximately 10 seconds) before Speaker B continues speaking. These prolonged overlap and pause severely disrupt the flow and smoothness of the conversation, going well beyond acceptable small pauses or brief overlaps.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2209.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2209",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are relevant throughout the dialogue. Speaker A introduces a topic (the Outlanders series), Speaker B responds by acknowledging the show and expressing a specific concern about its content. Speaker A then starts to address this, and Speaker B clarifies their question based on their concern. Speaker A then directly responds to Speaker B's clarified question, addressing the appropriateness concern and providing viewing information. The turns build logically upon each other and maintain focus on the initial topic and the specific issue raised by Speaker B.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is poor due to a prolonged pause. While there is a brief overlap where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A (which is acknowledged by Speaker B), the main issue is the significant silence between 0:14 and 0:23, which is approximately 9 seconds long. This long pause disrupts the natural flow of the conversation significantly, exceeding the acceptable limit of 5 seconds. There is also a smaller pause of around 3 seconds later, which is acceptable, but the long pause early on is a major issue.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--435.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--435",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe speakers' responses are relevant and logically follow the conversation flow. Speaker A asks about cooking, B responds and asks back. A responds and mentions chicken parmesan. B interrupts to ask about learning to cook. A agrees and suggests grocery shopping. B agrees. A suggests tonight, B suggests tomorrow. A shifts to what they have now (fried rice). B asks about the fried rice secret. A asks about the chicken parmesan recipe. B answers about the chicken parm being a family recipe, then gives the fried rice recipe (addressing B's previous question about fried rice). A responds positively to the fried rice recipe and asks about its origin. Despite the slight back-and-forth between fried rice and chicken parm topics in the latter part, the responses are all related to cooking and the current state of the conversation. There are no irrelevant or nonsensical contributions.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. There are no prolonged pauses over 5 seconds. There is a brief overlap when Speaker B interrupts Speaker A to ask about learning to cook (around 0:09), but this is short and natural in conversation. There is another brief overlap around 0:34 when Speaker B asks about the fried rice secret and Speaker A starts asking about the chicken parmesan recipe, but this overlap is also very short and does not last for 2 seconds or more. The turn-taking feels natural for an informal conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2926.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2926",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe response relevance is poor. The conversation starts relevantly, with Speaker A asking about a carpet stain and Speaker B offering relevant initial advice (blotting). However, Speaker B then asks \"So how did you clean the dog?\" (at 0:25), which is completely irrelevant to the original topic of cleaning the carpet stain. This breaks the logical flow of the conversation significantly. Although Speaker B later attempts to bring it back to carpet cleaners, the interruption with the irrelevant question makes the overall response relevance poor.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is generally good. Turn-taking is smooth with minimal pauses between speakers. There are some minor overlaps (e.g., at 0:09 and 0:39), but these are brief and typical of natural conversation, not prolonged or disruptive. Based on the provided timestamps and transcript, there are no apparent pauses over 5 seconds or overlaps over 2 seconds.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 5,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2964.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2964",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe response relevance is appropriate throughout the dialogue. Speaker A asks about modern artists, Speaker B responds by mentioning artists they like from the 60s (Jackson Pollock and Andy Warhol), which is relevant to the topic of art although not strictly \"modern\" in the narrowest sense, but acceptable in a casual conversation. Speaker A then picks up on Jackson Pollock, comments on his technique, and asks for Speaker B's opinion, which is highly relevant. Speaker B explains who Pollock is and his technique, again relevant. Speaker A shifts to a more general comment about appreciating passion for art and asks about visiting museums, which is a natural progression in a conversation about art. Speaker B responds relevantly to the museum question. The responses are logically consistent and follow the conversational flow well.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency has one significant issue. There is a prolonged pause between 0:08 and 0:18, lasting approximately 10 seconds. This pause is well over the 5-second threshold specified in the instructions and disrupts the smoothness of the turn-taking. While there are brief overlaps (e.g., around 0:02/0:03 and 0:07/0:08) and shorter pauses elsewhere, which are acceptable, this long pause is detrimental to fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--533.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--533",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant to the conversation flow. Speaker A introduces the topic of playing music, and Speaker B asks relevant follow-up questions about the type of music and other instruments played. Speaker A answers these questions directly and provides additional details. Speaker B then transitions smoothly to a related topic (other hobbies). The responses are logical and directly address the preceding turn. There is a slight awkwardness at the very end where Speaker A repeats information already given (\"I play the flute as well as the piano\"), but this doesn't negate the relevance of the conversation up to that point. The core exchanges are highly relevant.\n\n\n\nBased on the provided timestamps and the nature of the dialogue, there appear to be no significant pauses (over 5 seconds) or prolonged overlaps (over 2 seconds). The turn-taking is smooth and natural, with speakers responding promptly after the other has finished their turn. The interaction flows well without jarring interruptions or lengthy silences. The brief overlap noted at 00:23-00:24 falls within the acceptable threshold.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2090.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2090",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are generally relevant and follow the conversational thread. Speaker A initiates by asking about local Mexican restaurants, and Speaker B responds by stating their general dislike due to spiciness. Speaker A then directly addresses this point by asking about milder options. While Speaker B briefly shifts to talking about other foods like steak and lasagna, Speaker A brings the topic back to Mexican food and clarifies Speaker B's point about spiciness by asking about specific dishes like burritos and guacamole. Speaker B's responses about liking guacamole and how they like to eat it (with cheese) directly relate to Speaker A's questions. The interaction maintains a logical flow despite the initial difference in preference, exploring which specific Mexican dishes might be agreeable. The question from A at 0:53 \"Do you like fresh cheese on your house\" seems like a possible misunderstanding or transcription error, but B's subsequent comment about cheese on guacamole clarifies the intended topic. Overall, the responses are relevant to the discussion about Mexican food preferences.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is impacted by one significant issue. There is a very long pause from approximately 0:56 to 1:05, which is around 9 seconds. This long silence disrupts the natural flow of the conversation and exceeds the acceptable threshold of 5 seconds. There is also a brief interruption by Speaker A at 0:11 (\"Sorry to cut you off...\"). While brief overlaps and small pauses are acceptable, this prolonged pause is a notable fluency problem. There are no apparent long overlaps (2 seconds or more).\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--635.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--635",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe response relevance is excellent. Both speakers stay on topic, responding directly to each other's questions and statements. Speaker B (Bob) picks up on Speaker A's (Alice) excitement, asks relevant follow-up questions about her biking plans and gear, and confirms his own interest in the activity, keeping the conversation flowing logically. Alice provides clear and relevant answers to Bob's questions. There are no irrelevant or nonsensical responses.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth with no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds). There are a couple of very brief, natural-sounding overlaps (e.g., around 0:11 and 0:24), but they are not disruptive and do not constitute prolonged overlapping audio (2 seconds or more). The pace and rhythm feel natural for an informal conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2874.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2874",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant to the topic of how bee body color affects their behavior. Speaker B's question about how color affects communication and finding food/alerting others (starting at 00:17) is a direct and logical follow-up to Speaker A's point about how color affects reactions to light. Speaker A's subsequent question about hive behavior (starting at 00:41) is also a relevant extension of the discussion on color influencing individual and social behaviors. The conversation flows well and stays focused on the central theme, demonstrating good content relevance and logical consistency.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is significantly impacted by a prolonged overlap between the speakers. At approximately 00:17, Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still talking (until approximately 00:22). This overlap lasts for around 5 seconds. According to the scoring criteria, overlaps of 2 seconds or more are considered harmful and detract from fluency. While other turn-takings are smooth, this notable overlap constitutes a significant issue in interactional fluency. There were no pauses over 5 seconds observed.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--428.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--428",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A initiates the conversation by asking for recommendations for a trip to the Amazon, emphasizing safety. Speaker B's initial response asks about specific areas, which is a relevant follow-up question to help tailor recommendations. Speaker A explains why they have some knowledge (family background) but also deflects by suggesting Speaker B talk to their boyfriend, which is a slightly less relevant point but doesn't break the flow. Speaker B reiterates their need for information and safety, explaining why they seek external help. Speaker A then provides highly relevant assistance by offering access to their knowledgeable parents (park ranger and biologist). Speaker B accepts this offer but requests immediate, quick advice, which Speaker A provides effectively (wearing long sleeves/pants). The conversation concludes with Speaker B confirming the plan and Speaker A agreeing while needing to end the call, maintaining relevance. Overall, the responses build upon each other logically and address the user's stated needs and concerns.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent. Speakers A and B take turns smoothly without significant hesitation. There are no pauses exceeding 5 seconds, and while there might be brief, natural overlaps common in conversation, none appear to last for 2 seconds or more based on the audio and transcript timing. The conversation flows naturally, indicating good timing and responsiveness between the speakers.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--544.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--544",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe speakers maintain good response relevance throughout the dialogue. Speaker A initiates the conversation, and Speaker B provides a relevant update on their well-being and location. The conversation then naturally transitions to weekend plans, with both speakers sharing their activities (camping and fishing). Speaker B asks a relevant follow-up question about fishing, and Speaker A responds by asking for recommendations, which leads to a discussion about fishing spots and bait. Although Speaker B interrupts Speaker A's question about packing, the interruption is relevant to the fishing topic and is politely introduced (\"Sorry to jump in\"). All responses are logically consistent and contribute to the flow of the conversation about weekend plans and fishing.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is smooth, with minimal pauses and no prolonged silences over 5 seconds. There are a couple of very brief overlaps (e.g., around 0:20 and 0:36), but these are short (well under 2 seconds) and sound like natural conversational slight interruptions rather than disruptive overlaps. Speaker B even explicitly acknowledges interrupting at one point. The rhythm of the dialogue feels natural and easy-flowing.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--610.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--610",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant and follow a logical flow. Speaker A asks about current work, Speaker B details renovation plans. Speaker A then brings up the laundry room, which is related to home tasks, and Speaker B responds by relating to Speaker A's comment about it being the \"worst part\". Speaker A then offers a suggestion related to the laundry discussion (making detergent), and Speaker B acknowledges the suggestion before smoothly transitioning back to an earlier point about the countertops. The conversation moves naturally between related topics, and each response directly addresses or builds upon the previous turn.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no significant pauses exceeding 5 seconds or overlaps exceeding 2 seconds. The turn-taking is smooth and natural throughout the conversation, allowing for a clear and uninterrupted flow between speakers A and B.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--565.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--565",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe speakers maintain a highly relevant conversation throughout the dialogue. Speaker A initiates the topic of music and asks for a favorite band. Speaker B directly answers and introduces Bob Dylan. Speaker A then responds enthusiastically about Bob Dylan and shares a related experience. Speaker B follows up on this, sharing their own experience (a negative one), which prompts Speaker A to ask for details. Speaker B provides the requested details, and Speaker A responds by confirming understanding and expressing shared disappointment. Speaker B then offers a concluding remark acknowledging the situation while reiterating their overall positive view of Dylan's music. The dialogue flows logically from general interest in music to a specific artist and shared experiences, demonstrating strong response relevance.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth and natural, with no noticeable prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds) or disruptive overlapping speech (over 2 seconds). The speakers respond promptly to each other, allowing the conversation to progress without awkward delays or interruptions.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2128.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2128",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe response relevance is good. Speaker A describes a dish and begins to ask a question. Speaker B interrupts to clarify a key term (\"roast beef\") from A's description, which is relevant. Speaker B then correctly anticipates and responds to the likely question Speaker A was asking (about enjoying cooking/trying different things), explicitly stating \"back to your question\". This shows understanding and appropriate response, despite the initial interruption and A's trailing off.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is poor due to a very long pause. Speaker A speaks until 00:06, and Speaker B interrupts briefly at 00:06-00:07. There is then a significant pause from 00:07 to 00:17 (approximately 10 seconds) before Speaker B continues their response. This long pause significantly disrupts the flow of the conversation and is well over the 5-second threshold for acceptable pauses.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--618.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--618",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are relevant and logical. Speaker A starts by asking about Speaker B's dinner, then describes her own meal when asked. Speaker B expresses interest in the cooking process (quesadillas), and Speaker A provides details. Speaker B comments on the amount of cooking, and Speaker A responds with her reason for liking to cook. Speaker A also attempts to reintroduce her original question and highlight the broccoli preparation, which is relevant to her meal description. Speaker B's final response, though the audio cuts off, seems related to following A's cooking suggestions. The conversation flows naturally from topic to sub-topic related to food and cooking.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. Turn-taking is smooth with no significant pauses (over 5s). There is a very brief overlap at the beginning of Speaker B's turn at 0:10, where B says \"Sorry to interrupt\", which is a natural conversational element and well within the acceptable limit (under 2s). There are no prolonged overlaps or awkward silences observed before the audio cuts off.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2158.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2158",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe speakers maintain relevance throughout the dialogue. Speaker A initiates with a general greeting (\"How are you doing today?\"). Speaker B shifts to a personal update about trying to improve cooking skills, which Speaker A then engages with enthusiastically, sharing her own cooking experiences and offering a suggestion. Speaker B follows up by mentioning a cooking class he is attending. Speaker A then asks about wines, a related topic. Speaker B answers directly. The conversation returns to the cooking class, with Speaker A wishing him well, and Speaker B expressing a hope related to the class. Speaker A relates and asks a relevant follow-up question about the food type in the class. Speaker B starts to answer, and Speaker A introduces a new, related question about previous class experience, which Speaker B answers directly. The flow of topics is logical and speakers respond to each other's points, even when introducing slight shifts.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is mostly good, with appropriate turn-taking for the majority of the dialogue. Pauses are generally brief and within acceptable limits (the pause between 0:16 and 0:20 is just under 5 seconds). However, there is a clear instance of interruption starting at 0:59 where Speaker A begins asking a new question (\"Have you ever taken any sort of cooking class before?\") while Speaker B is still speaking about the type of food served in the class (\"...serve a lot of simple healthy food\"). This causes Speaker B to stop speaking and significantly disrupts the natural turn-taking flow at that point. While the overlap itself is brief, the interruption forces the other speaker to cease their utterance, which is a notable issue for fluency. This instance prevents the interactional fluency from being consistently appropriate and natural.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2226.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2226",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are relevant and logical throughout the dialogue. Speaker A introduces the topic of spending a lot of time on school, and Speaker B follows up by asking about a specific school assignment, which is a relevant continuation of the topic. Speaker A then responds to the specific question and connects it back to their earlier point about getting work done. Speaker B agrees and expands on the shared feeling of being overwhelmed. The content flows logically from one turn to the next when the speakers are actively talking.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is significantly affected by a prolonged pause between 0:10 and 0:20, which lasts for approximately 9 seconds. This clearly exceeds the acceptable limit of 5 seconds for a pause and disrupts the natural flow of the conversation. There is a brief overlap around 0:10 when Speaker B speaks over Speaker A, but this overlap is short and acceptable (<2s). The pause between 0:26 and 0:29 is within the acceptable limit (~3s). However, the long pause is a major issue for fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--633.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--633",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are consistently relevant to the questions and statements made by the other speaker. Speaker B directly answers Speaker A's questions about travel plans and managing expenses. Speaker A's questions, while sometimes interjecting or changing the specific sub-topic (from architecture to travel expenses, then to navigating the city), are logical follow-ups related to the broader theme of travel and visiting Buenos Aires. There are no instances of irrelevant or nonsensical responses.\n\n\n\nThe interaction shows mostly smooth turn-taking, with no significant pauses exceeding 5 seconds. There are a couple of instances where Speaker A interjects while Speaker B is still speaking, but the duration of these overlaps appears to be brief, well under the specified threshold of 2 seconds. For example, at 0:12 and 0:28, Speaker A starts speaking before Speaker B has finished, but the overlap lasts only about 1 second. Based on the criteria of avoiding pauses over 5s and overlaps for 2s or more, the interaction meets the requirements for appropriate fluency.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--581.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--581",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant and logical. Speaker A introduces their garden, Speaker B asks related questions about what is grown and planted, and Speaker A provides appropriate answers, including listing plants and later describing the garden size. Speaker B's interruption to ask about lavender tips is directly prompted by Speaker A mentioning lavender in their list, making the question relevant to the ongoing conversation thread. The subsequent turns continue to discuss related topics like gardening tips and garden size. There are no instances of irrelevant comments or abrupt, illogical topic shifts that disrupt the conversation's coherence.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is generally good. Turn-taking is relatively smooth with minimal pauses between speakers. There is one clear instance of overlap at the 0:19 mark where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A, but this overlap is brief (estimated at 1-2 seconds) and acknowledged by Speaker B (\"Sorry to interrupt\"). There are no pauses that last longer than 5 seconds, and the overlap does not exceed the 2-second threshold mentioned in the criteria. The flow feels natural for a casual conversation, with turns often following quickly after the previous speaker finishes.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2344.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2344",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is generally good. The speakers stay on the topic of Steven Spielberg movies, specifically discussing a new one they both saw and then shifting to Jurassic Park. Speaker A introduces the new movie, Speaker B agrees and comments on a specific scene, Speaker A asks a follow-up question about that scene's necessity, and Speaker B answers before changing the topic slightly to Jurassic Park. Speaker A acknowledges this shift and then asks a comparative question related to Spielberg's work, bringing it back to the broader theme. The subsequent discussion about the movie's tone and violence is relevant to their earlier comments. Although the transition to Jurassic Park is a bit abrupt, Speaker A manages to connect it back logically, maintaining relevance. There are no significant instances of irrelevant or contradictory responses.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency has significant issues in this dialogue. While turn-taking is mostly smooth with acceptable brief pauses and one minor overlap (\"Sorry to jump in\"), there is a very long pause between Speaker A's initial \"Oh Jurassic Park\" (at 0:29) and their continuation (at 0:39). This pause is approximately 10 seconds, which is well over the 5-second threshold and significantly disrupts the flow and naturalness of the conversation. The rest of the dialogue exhibits normal turn-taking and pause durations. However, the single prolonged pause is a major detractor from fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2706.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2706",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A initiates by asking about food preferences. Speaker B responds directly with a preference (pasta). Speaker A follows up by asking about the specific type, and B answers (ravioli). Speaker A then offers to cook it and asks about additions. Speaker B interrupts slightly but remains relevant by asking about the recipe and suggesting trying something new. Speaker A acknowledges this and discusses recipes and a cookbook, prompting B's final question about using the cookbook. The conversation flows logically from general food preference to specific plans involving a cookbook.\n\n\n\nTurn-taking is mostly smooth with acceptable pauses between turns. However, there is a notable overlap between Speaker A (at 00:14-00:17) and Speaker B (at 00:15-00:20). Speaker B starts speaking at 00:15 while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence, resulting in an overlap of approximately 2 seconds. According to the criteria, overlaps of 2 seconds or more are considered harmful and indicate a significant issue in Interactional Fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 5,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2387.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2387",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant and logically follow from the previous turns. Speaker B confirms liking mountain biking, provides a tip when asked, asks about timing and gear which are relevant planning steps, and offers to bring extra gloves. Speaker A expresses interest, asks for a tip, suggests a time, responds to the gear question, and suggests a meeting time. There are no instances of irrelevant or nonsensical replies.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is significantly impacted by issues in turn-taking. At 0:29, Speaker B interrupts Speaker A who is in the middle of suggesting a time (\"weekend before we...\"). Following this interruption, there is a prolonged pause of approximately 9 seconds (from 0:30 to 0:39) before Speaker B continues. While other turns are relatively smooth, this clear interruption and subsequent long pause violate the criteria for acceptable fluency (avoiding pauses over 5s and overlaps for 2s or more, though the overlap isn't 2s+, the disruption is due to the cut-off and subsequent pause).\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2038.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2038",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A initiates the conversation about kitten care and hydration concerns. Speaker B provides relevant information about kitten hydration needs and self-regulation. Speaker A clarifies their specific concern (\"how much is too much?\"), which Speaker B addresses. Speaker A then proposes methods for providing water, which are initially unclear (\"empty bottle of water\"). Speaker B seeks clarification, and Speaker A rephrases the idea. Speaker B responds to the clarified idea. The conversation flows logically from initial concern to proposed solutions and clarification.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is mostly good, with speakers taking turns appropriately and avoiding long pauses. However, there is a noticeable overlap around the 0:11-0:13 mark where Speaker A begins speaking (\"Sorry to jump in...\") while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. This overlap lasts approximately 2 seconds, which falls at the boundary defined as potentially \"harmful\" in the criteria (\"overlaps for 2s or more\"). While the rest of the dialogue is fluent, this specific point of significant overlap impacts the overall fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 3,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--650.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--650",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A initiates a topic or responds to a previous one, and Speaker B directly engages with A's point, introducing a related question or perspective (e.g., B's question about Marx's focus on fairness follows A's statement). Speaker A then responds directly to B's point, acknowledging it (\"That's an interesting point\") while offering their own view. Speaker B builds on this by suggesting a balance, and A prompts further explanation (\"How so?\"), which B provides clearly. The final response from A ties back to the importance of fairness, connecting to themes discussed earlier. There are no irrelevant or nonsensical contributions.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is smooth, with speakers responding promptly to each other's turns. There are no noticeable prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds) between turns. There is a brief overlap indicated by Speaker B saying \"Sorry to jump in\", but this is short and acceptable according to the guidelines. There are no other prolonged overlaps (2 seconds or more) that disrupt the flow of the conversation. The rhythm and flow of the dialogue feel natural and unhindered by timing issues.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--454.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--454",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue exhibits good response relevance. Speaker A initiates the conversation with a common greeting, and Speaker B responds appropriately while introducing a related topic (learning to cook). The subsequent turns follow logically, with suggestions about recipes, questions about preferences, advice on cooking, and discussion of food types. Although Speaker A initially deflects the request for simple recipes by asking about Speaker B's preferences (0:15), they circle back to the original request later in the conversation (0:41). All responses are pertinent to the ongoing discussion about cooking and food.\n\n\n\nThe interaction demonstrates excellent fluency. The turn-taking is smooth, with no noticeable prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds) between speakers. There are also no disruptive or long overlaps (over 2 seconds). The timing between turns feels natural for a casual conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2365.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2365",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are consistently relevant to the ongoing conversation about Speaker A's cancer diagnosis and situation. Speaker B expresses appropriate sympathy, offers a relevant suggestion (second opinion), asks a pertinent question related to the diagnosis (PET scan), and offers professional assistance as a physician. The responses are logical and appropriate within this context. Response Relevance is excellent.\n\n\n\nThere is a significant overlap around the 00:18-00:20 mark where Speaker B interrupts and talks over Speaker A for approximately 2 seconds or slightly more while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. Although there are no long pauses, this notable overlap disrupts the natural flow of the conversation according to the criteria that overlaps of 2 seconds or more are harmful. Interactional Fluency has a significant issue due to this overlap.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 3,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--555.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--555",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are generally relevant to the preceding turn. Speaker B responds to Speaker A's comments on red pandas and then asks a related question about science. Speaker A responds to the science question. Speaker B asks about mirror neurons, which is related to the science topic, and Speaker A responds. Although Speaker B interrupts briefly to bring the conversation back to red pandas, Speaker A responds to this point before returning to the mirror neuron topic. Speaker B then asks about other activities, which Speaker A answers, and Speaker B follows up on one of those activities. While there are some abrupt topic changes, the individual responses within each turn are relevant and logically consistent with the immediate context established by the previous speaker. There are no instances of completely irrelevant or nonsensical responses.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are no pauses longer than 5 seconds. There are very brief overlaps (around 1 second) at the start of some turns (e.g., 0:11, 0:31) where one speaker begins speaking just as the other finishes, which are common in natural conversation and do not reach the threshold of 2 seconds or more. The turn-taking is generally smooth and appropriate, without prolonged interruptions or awkward silences.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 3,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--587.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--587",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant and logical. Speaker A initiates by asking about stock and then explains why they wanted to purchase it in-store (to use a rewards card). Speaker B directly addresses the stock question, offers alternatives, and then logically suggests using the rewards card on other items when Speaker A mentions it. Speaker A follows up with a relevant question about future stock availability, which Speaker B answers by explaining the situation (high demand) and managing expectations about availability. The conversation flows naturally from one point to the next, with each speaker's response directly relating to the previous turn's content. There are no irrelevant tangents or illogical leaps in the conversation.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent. The turn-taking is very smooth, with minimal gaps between speakers. There are no prolonged pauses over 5 seconds. There is a very brief, natural-sounding overlap around 0:12 as Speaker B begins speaking just as Speaker A finishes, but this overlap is well under the 2-second threshold mentioned in the criteria and does not disrupt the flow of the conversation. The overall rhythm of the interaction is natural and conversational.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2088.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2088",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are relevant to the conversation about having trouble with math. Speaker A states the problem. Speaker B asks for specific details. Speaker A responds that it's not specific and states their general feeling. Speaker B acknowledges and rephrases the question to try and elicit specifics again. The logical flow of the conversation is appropriate.\n\n\n\nThere is a very long pause (approximately 9 seconds, from 0:06 to 0:15) within Speaker A's first turn after starting their sentence. This pause is well over the 5-second limit mentioned in the criteria and significantly disrupts the fluency of the interaction. The other turn transitions are relatively smooth, but this long internal pause is a major fluency issue.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 3,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--421.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--421",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses throughout the dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A's questions are directly answered by Speaker B, and Speaker B's questions are answered by Speaker A. The conversation flows naturally from one topic to a related one (e.g., from cooking experience to types of cooking, then to specific dishes, and finally to related activities like cooking classes or VR experiences). There are no instances of off-topic or illogical responses that disrupt the conversation's coherence. Speaker B's slight misunderstanding of Speaker A's comment about her husband's baking leading to a slightly repetitive question about A's own cooking experience is a very minor point and doesn't detract from the overall relevance. Speaker B's clarification about buying rather than fishing for salmon is also a relevant response clarifying Speaker A's implicit question.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth and quick, with no significant pauses observed (none appear to be over 5 seconds). There are two brief instances of overlap where speakers start talking almost simultaneously (around 0:40 and 0:59), but these overlaps are short, lasting approximately 1-2 seconds or less, and appear natural rather than disruptive or prolonged (not over 2 seconds). These minor overlaps do not hinder the communication flow. Overall, the rhythm and pacing of the conversation feel very natural and fluid.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2082.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2082",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe interaction demonstrates good response relevance for the majority of the dialogue. Speakers answer questions and build upon previous points, moving naturally from discussing the air fryer to comparing it with another appliance (the Sarpence pot) for different uses like baking. However, there is a point of confusion around the 0:46-0:52 mark where speaker A asks about a potentially misnamed \"Hops press pot\", and speaker B responds \"I don't [have one]\", which contradicts B's earlier statement (0:28-0:34) that they *do* have a \"Sarpence pot\" (which appears to be the appliance being referred to in the subsequent turns). This brief segment shows a breakdown in logical consistency and clear understanding between the speakers, constituting a notable issue in response relevance. Despite this, the conversation recovers and continues on a relevant track.\n\n\n\nThe interaction exhibits issues with interactional fluency, specifically regarding overlapping speech. While brief overlaps are acceptable, there is a prolonged overlap starting around 0:16 where speaker A jumps in while speaker B is still speaking. This overlap lasts for approximately 3 seconds (0:16-0:19), exceeding the 2-second threshold mentioned in the criteria as being harmful. There are no significant pauses (over 5 seconds) observed in the dialogue. The prolonged overlap is a significant issue affecting the smoothness of the turn-taking.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 6,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2052.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2052",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant and logically connected. Speaker A introduces the topic, Speaker B responds, Speaker A follows up with a specific question and personal context, Speaker B answers, Speaker A builds on the conversation by discussing a related problem (finding them at the right price), and Speaker B provides helpful tips in response. The conversation flows naturally from one point to the next, staying focused on the topic of paintbrushes. There are no instances of off-topic remarks or contradictory statements.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is generally good with appropriate turn-taking and no long pauses (over 5 seconds). However, there is a notable overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B from approximately 00:06 to 00:08, which lasts for about 2 seconds. According to the scoring criteria, overlaps \"for 2s or more\" are considered harmful and prevent a score of 2. While Speaker A does apologize (\"Sorry to jump in\"), the duration of the overlap falls exactly on the threshold defined as problematic. This prevents the interaction from being described as \"consistently appropriate and natural\" in terms of fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 5,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--608.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--608",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nSpeaker A's responses are consistently relevant to Speaker B's questions and comments, discussing the process of painting and color choices. Speaker B's responses are also mostly relevant, following up on A's statements and asking related questions. There is one point where Speaker B mentions \"Great blue\" after Speaker A said \"bright yellow,\" which seems like a slight misunderstanding or mishearing, but the follow-up comment about bold colors remains relevant to the overall topic of choosing paint colors. Overall, the conversation maintains logical consistency and the responses are appropriate.\n\n\n\nBased on the provided turns, the interaction appears to have smooth turn-taking. There are no indications of prolonged pauses (over 5s) or significant overlaps (over 2s). The conversation flows naturally between speakers.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--502.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--502",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A introduces the topic of Vichy France during WWII, and Speaker B immediately asks a relevant follow-up question (\"What did you learn?\"). Speaker A responds by detailing the cooperation between the Vichy and Nazi governments. Speaker B then asks a logical 'why' question (\"why they would choose to?\"). Speaker A provides a plausible historical explanation based on geography and the inability to resist, leading to surrender. Speaker B transitions smoothly to a related aspect, wondering about public knowledge (\"how many people knew what was really happening\"). Speaker A acknowledges this as a good question and offers an opinion on it. Each turn builds upon the previous one, maintaining focus on the core topic and showing active listening and engagement. There are no irrelevant or inconsistent responses.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is also excellent. The turn-taking is natural and smooth throughout the dialogue. Pauses between turns are minimal and well within acceptable limits (mostly under 1 second). There are two instances of slight overlap where Speaker A starts speaking just as Speaker B is finishing their sentence (at 0:15 and 0:29), but these are very brief (less than 2 seconds) and sound like natural conversational cues (e.g., interjecting agreement or a related thought), not disruptive long overlaps. There are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds). The rhythm of the conversation is natural and easy to follow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2033.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2033",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. The conversation flows naturally from discussing a class case about toenail fungus to sharing personal experiences and potential treatment methods for the condition. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous speaker's contribution, maintaining a clear and coherent topic throughout the interaction.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is mostly good, with acceptable short pauses and brief overlaps (e.g., at 0:17-0:19 and 0:46-0:48). However, there is a significant prolonged pause lasting approximately 8 seconds (from 0:49 to 0:57). This exceeds the 5-second threshold mentioned in the criteria as being harmful to fluency, disrupting the natural flow of the conversation.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--577.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--577",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A initiates the conversation about wanting to see Bob Dylan. Speaker B responds by mentioning the cost, which is a direct and relevant point. Speaker A then proposes a solution (investing in stocks) to fund the concert, and Speaker B seeks clarification on this specific plan, which is also relevant. Speaker A confirms the plan and adds another relevant interest (keeping up with Bob Dylan news). Speaker B's final comment acknowledges Speaker A's various interests, linking back to the content of the conversation. The turn-taking maintains a clear thematic thread related to seeing Bob Dylan and the means to achieve it.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. Turn-taking is smooth without disruptive long pauses (over 5 seconds). There is a brief overlap at around 0:09-0:10 when Speaker A starts speaking slightly before Speaker B finishes their sentence. However, this overlap is very short (less than 1 second) and does not impede understanding or feel unnatural in the context of a casual conversation. There are no prolonged overlaps of 2 seconds or more. The overall flow feels natural and conversational.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--422.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--422",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe speakers engage in a conversation about growing plants. Speaker A initiates by asking about growing trees. Speaker B responds directly by mentioning growing a plum tree. The conversation progresses naturally from trees to fruit trees, then to herbs, and back to general gardening topics. The responses are consistently relevant to the topic being discussed. There is a slight point of confusion where Speaker A asks about pest management in her herb garden (0:42) immediately after stating she doesn't have a green thumb (0:40), which Speaker B notes (0:49). However, this is a minor point and Speaker A clarifies later (0:51). The responses generally flow logically and maintain coherence throughout the dialogue.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. The turn-taking is smooth, with minimal pauses between speakers. There are some brief, natural overlaps (e.g., around 0:07, 0:36, 0:40, 0:49), but none of them are prolonged (over 2 seconds). There are no noticeable long pauses (over 5 seconds) at any point in the conversation. The rhythm and pace of the dialogue feel natural for a casual conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2927.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2927",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are relevant to the conversation topic, which is seeking help for car trouble and finding an auto service shop. Speaker A asks for recommendations and explains the problem (strange noises, grinding). Speaker B indicates they can help and works in the field, and acknowledges the problem when described. The conversation progresses logically based on the user's need and the other speaker's potential ability to help.\n\n\n\nThe interaction starts reasonably smoothly, but Speaker A interrupts Speaker B significantly around the 0:08 mark, talking over them to explain the problem urgently. This is a noticeable breakdown in smooth turn-taking and constitutes a significant overlap, impacting the overall interactional fluency. There are no prolonged pauses over 5 seconds.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2371.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2371",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A initiates the conversation and shares their interest in choral music. Speaker B asks relevant follow-up questions about favorite pieces and their meaning. Speaker B then proposes trying other genres, which is a logical extension of the topic. Speaker A's final response acknowledges the idea and reiterates their current focus. The conversation flows naturally and each turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one. Response relevance is excellent.\n\n\n\nThe interaction generally features smooth turn-taking. There are no noticeable pauses exceeding 5 seconds. However, there is a significant overlap/interruption starting around the 0:28 mark. Speaker B begins speaking (\"Oh, I was about to ask...\") while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence (\"...exploring other genres much.\"). This overlap continues for several seconds while Speaker B makes their point about mixing genres. The duration of this overlap is well over the 2-second threshold specified as harmful. This constitutes a significant issue in interactional fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 5,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2933.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2933",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant and logical. Speaker A asks about music, Speaker B responds appropriately. Speaker A follows up about instruments, Speaker B answers and then transitions smoothly to the weather topic. Both speakers then discuss the weather, responding to each other's points and questions. The flow of the conversation is coherent, moving from personal interests to a shared observation about the environment.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is mostly good with natural turn-taking and acceptable brief overlaps (e.g., at 00:29). However, there is a significant disruption in fluency caused by a very long pause between 00:30 and 00:40 (approximately 10 seconds). This pause occurs mid-sentence for Speaker B and is well over the acceptable limit of 5 seconds, severely impacting the smoothness of the interaction.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--611.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--611",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker B's initial interruption is immediately followed by a relevant offer of help related to the task Speaker A mentioned. Speaker A accepts the help and then introduces a relevant follow-up question about preferences for the stew, which Speaker B directly answers. The conversation flows naturally from one point to the next, staying on topic and building on previous turns.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There is a very slight overlap when Speaker B interrupts at the beginning, but it is brief, acknowledged (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), and does not disrupt the flow. There are no noticeable pauses over 5 seconds or prolonged overlaps of 2 seconds or more. The turn-taking is smooth and natural throughout the short exchange.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--464.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--464",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Speakers A and B consistently respond to each other's statements and questions. Speaker A initiates by asking how B is doing, and B responds appropriately before asking A back. The conversation then naturally transitions to favourite fruits. When Speaker B mentions apples, Speaker A's interruption to ask about specific apple types is a relevant follow-up question, demonstrating active listening and engagement with B's statement. Speaker B acknowledges the interruption and redirects back to the original question, ensuring the conversation doesn't get stuck on the sub-topic, which shows good control of the conversational thread. Both speakers then share their favourite fruits and ask relevant follow-up questions about the fruits mentioned (mango). The final question repeated by Speaker B is slightly redundant after A's previous answer, but it doesn't fundamentally break the logical flow. Overall, the responses are accurate, logically consistent within the context of the conversation, and maintain the topic effectively.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is consistently appropriate. Turn-taking is generally smooth throughout the dialogue. There are a couple of instances of brief overlap (e.g., around 00:12 and 00:35) where one speaker starts just as the other is finishing or is briefly interrupted. However, these overlaps are short and sound natural rather than disruptive. There are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds) or significant overlaps (2 seconds or more) observed in the audio. The speakers take turns promptly, allowing the conversation to flow naturally without awkward gaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2250.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2250",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue exhibits reasonable response relevance. Speaker A describes a method for making a PB&J. Speaker B asks a relevant clarifying question about safety. Speaker A's response to the safety question doesn't directly address safety but talks about the taste and encourages trying it, which is slightly off-topic but still related to the experience. Speaker B then asks a comparative question about traditional PB&J, which A answers directly. The final turn is a relevant wrap-up. While Speaker A avoids the safety question, the subsequent turns are logically connected and follow a conversational flow. It's not a significant breakdown in relevance, just a slight sidestep.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is problematic due to a prolonged pause between the first and second turns. Speaker A finishes speaking around 0:07, and Speaker B does not begin speaking until around 0:17. This is a pause of approximately 10 seconds, which is well over the acceptable limit of 5 seconds. Subsequent turn-taking is smoother with shorter pauses, but the initial long pause significantly disrupts the flow. There are no prolonged overlaps detected. The significant pause constitutes a significant issue in interactional fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--696.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--696",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue begins with Speaker A expressing a strong negative opinion about Levi's jeans. Speaker B responds directly, disagreeing and stating a positive opinion about the same jeans. Speaker A then explains their position further, emphasizing their right to personal preference and stating a principle (\"If I don't like something I won't wear it\"). Speaker B acknowledges this point (\"I totally get that\") but then introduces a new example related to clothing preference (long-sleeve vs. short-sleeve shirts). While this shifts the specific topic, it is conceptually linked to the idea of personal comfort and preference discussed by Speaker A. Speaker A then reiterates their original principle. The responses are logically consistent within the context of expressing and defending personal preferences, even with the slight shift in the example provided by Speaker B.\n\n\n\nThe interaction shows smooth turn-taking for the most part. There is a very brief overlap when Speaker B interrupts Speaker A at the beginning, but it is not prolonged and falls within acceptable limits. There are no noticeable pauses exceeding 5 seconds. The conversation flows naturally between the speakers until the audio abruptly ends.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--613.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--613",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and logical. Speaker A initiates by asking about a Facebook account, and Speaker B confirms having one. Speaker A expresses excitement about her new account, leading to Speaker B asking for her account name. Speaker A provides a name. Speaker B offers to add her, and Speaker A asks about his posting habits, which Speaker B answers. They then discuss adding each other and express mutual excitement. The dialogue flows naturally with each response building on the previous turn. The only slightly unusual part is Speaker A giving an account name \"Bob Seattle\" when Speaker B is \"Bob\", but within the context of exchanging account names, the response is still relevant in topic, even if the specific name is confusing. Overall, the responses maintain accuracy and logical consistency throughout the interaction.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is smooth with minimal pauses. There is a brief overlap at the start of Speaker A's turn at 0:20 (\"Wait before you do...\") which is very short and sounds like a natural conversational interruption, well under the 2-second threshold. There are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds) or significant overlaps that disrupt the flow. The conversation proceeds at a natural pace.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--641.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--641",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are generally relevant and follow the flow of the conversation. Speaker A expresses a desire to travel, Speaker B responds with their current state (bored, stuck) and then suggests a place. Speaker A follows up on the suggestion, and Speaker B explains why they can't share photos. Speaker A's question about photos from Japan (00:25) seems slightly out of place, interrupting the discussion about the Seattle-area location. However, Speaker A quickly brings the conversation back to the original topic about the place near Seattle (00:34). The responses show logical consistency within the turn-taking, even with the brief detour.\n\n\n\nThe interaction exhibits good interactional fluency. Turn-taking is smooth with appropriate gaps between speakers. There are no prolonged pauses exceeding 5 seconds or significant overlaps lasting 2 seconds or more. There are minor overlaps at the start of some turns (e.g., 00:16, 00:31) but these are brief and natural in conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2850.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2850",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A introduces the topic of planning a trip with their parents. Speaker B asks a relevant follow-up question about how the destination is chosen. Speaker A answers this question by explaining their process. Speaker A then asks Speaker B about their travel plans, and Speaker B attempts to respond to this question, although they are cut off. Speaker A's subsequent comments about staying in town seem to anticipate or react to what Speaker B might have been saying, and Speaker B continues their response about travel plans. The conversation stays on the topic of travel plans throughout.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is poor due to a significant pause and an abrupt cut-off. Speaker B is cut off mid-sentence at around the 0:32 mark. Following this, there is a very long pause, approximately 10 seconds, before Speaker A speaks again at 0:42. This extended pause and abrupt interruption severely disrupt the natural flow and smoothness of the conversation. While brief overlaps and short pauses are acceptable, the duration of this pause exceeds the threshold specified (over 5s), indicating a significant fluency issue.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2303.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2303",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are generally relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A initiates by asking about Speaker B's deck ideas. Speaker B responds with their plan and cost concerns. Speaker A provides a relevant suggestion related to saving money by doing it themselves. Speaker B then transitions to asking about Speaker A's plans, which is a natural turn in this kind of conversation. Speaker A shares their idea, and Speaker B responds positively and asks relevant follow-up questions about execution and finding help. The dialogue maintains a consistent topic (home improvement/DIY projects) and the responses build upon previous turns.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is significantly impacted by a prolonged pause in the dialogue. While there is a minor overlap at the beginning (Speaker A interrupting Speaker B briefly, acknowledging it with \"Sorry to jump in\"), which is acceptable, there is a substantial gap in the conversation starting around the 29-second mark and lasting until around the 38-second mark (approximately 9 seconds). This long pause severely disrupts the flow of the interaction and is well over the 5-second threshold for acceptable pauses. There also seems to be an abrupt cut-off of Speaker B's audio just before this long pause. Due to this significant pause and audio issue, the fluency is poor.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2156.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2156",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates good response relevance. Speaker A initiates a topic (learning about the solar system), and Speaker B engages with relevant information and questions (asking about A's interest, listing planets). Speaker A's interruption to ask about Pluto is directly relevant to Speaker B's enumeration of solar system bodies. Speaker B handles this query accurately, clarifying Pluto's reclassification while acknowledging its part in the solar system. Speaker B then asks a relevant follow-up question about A's favorite planet. Speaker A provides a relevant answer (Venus), although stating it is blue is factually incorrect, the response itself addresses the question asked. Speaker B responds by connecting to A's answer and sharing relevant personal experience (physics background). The conversation stays on topic and responses are generally appropriate and logical within the flow of the discussion.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is significantly impacted by a prolonged pause. After Speaker B lists the planets and asteroids (ending around 0:22), Speaker A says \"Sorry I interrupt.\" (ending around 0:23). There is then a significant pause until Speaker A continues their thought/question (\"But isn't Pluto no longer considered a planet?\") starting at approximately 0:33. This pause is approximately 10 seconds long, which is well over the 5-second threshold for a significant issue according to the criteria. Other turns seem reasonably timed, but this single, lengthy pause is a major disruption to the smoothness and natural flow of the conversation. There are no prolonged overlaps observed.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2853.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2853",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are relevant to the ongoing conversation about healthy eating and diet. Speaker B's interruption at 0:15 changes the flow by asking a question of Speaker A rather than responding to Speaker A's question, but the topic remains relevant (protein, processed foods). Speaker A then responds appropriately to B's question, and B responds appropriately to A's subsequent statements about fruits. The content of the responses is logically consistent with the conversation's theme.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is significantly impacted by a prolonged overlap. At 0:15, Speaker B interrupts Speaker A while Speaker A is still asking a question and speaks over them for approximately 2 seconds (\"Sorry to jump in, but I wanted to ask...\"). This is a clear and disruptive overlap that prevents Speaker A from finishing their turn smoothly and forces them to stop speaking. While other turn-takings are smooth, this specific interruption is a major issue according to the criteria.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 5,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--485.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--485",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are generally relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A asks questions based on Speaker B's previous statements (e.g., asking about bands after B mentions listening to music, asking about a specific song after B mentions an album). Speaker B provides direct answers to these questions. There is a slight moment at the end where Speaker B suggests a favorite song from an album that Speaker A explicitly stated they do not know, which is a minor deviation in relevance/accuracy. However, for the most part, the dialogue flows logically with appropriate responses.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is smooth, with no significant pauses over 5 seconds. There are very brief, natural overlaps (under 1 second) that do not disrupt the flow of the conversation and are typical in natural speech. The speakers alternate turns without hesitation or prolonged interruptions.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2997.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2997",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe speakers maintain good response relevance throughout the dialogue. Speaker A introduces the topic of being interested in politics, and Speaker B asks a relevant follow-up question. Although Speaker A interrupts, their turn directly addresses why they find politics interesting. Speaker B then responds appropriately, acknowledging A's point and agreeing about the complexity. Speaker A elaborates on their view and Speaker B offers a relevant interjection (\"Annoying\"). After a pause, Speaker B introduces a related political topic (the EU/Brexit), and Speaker A responds directly to this with their knowledge/opinion, which Speaker B then reacts to. The content flows logically from one turn to the next, even with the fluency issues. Responses are accurate to the topic being discussed.\n\n\n\nThere are significant issues with interactional fluency in this dialogue.\n1. There is a prolonged overlap from approximately 00:07 to 00:12 where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B significantly, lasting well over 2 seconds.\n2. There is a very long pause from approximately 00:29 to 00:37, lasting around 8 seconds, which is much longer than the 5-second threshold.\nThese two instances represent significant disruptions to the smoothness and naturalness of the turn-taking, impacting the interactional fluency negatively according to the criteria.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2723.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2723",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are relevant to the conversation flow. Speaker A talks about a lung exhibit, speaker B asks a question about it, speaker A answers and then shifts to a related topic (learning about the heart in school), speaker B asks for clarification on that shift, and speaker A provides it. The final comment from speaker B also connects the two topics (lungs and heart working together). The dialogue follows a logical path, even with the slight shift in focus from the exhibit to the school subject.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is significantly impacted by a long pause. While there are minor overlaps that are acceptable, there is a pause lasting approximately 11 seconds between the end of speaker A's turn around 0:31 and the start of speaker B's turn at 0:42. This long period of silence disrupts the natural flow of the conversation and exceeds the 5-second limit for acceptable pauses.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2175.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2175",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe response relevance is mostly maintained throughout the conversation, focusing on movies and related topics like directors or book versions. However, there is a notable issue where Speaker A asks \"Do you have a favorite movie?\" three times (at 0:29, seemingly attempted at 0:37 before being cut off, and explicitly at 1:06). Speaker B provides \"Pet Sematary\" and \"The Silence of the Lambs\" as answers to this question earlier. Yet, when asked for the third time at 1:06, Speaker B responds \"Nope, that's a tough question.\" This direct contradiction to previous statements breaks the logical consistency of the dialogue regarding Speaker B's stated preferences.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency has several issues. There are two instances where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A mid-sentence (at 0:10 and 0:37). More significantly, there is a prolonged pause lasting approximately 10 seconds (from 0:38 to 0:48). This long pause disrupts the flow of the conversation and is well over the specified 5-second threshold for acceptability. There is another pause from 0:18 to 0:22, which is close to the threshold but just under. The interruptions and the long pause indicate significant issues with smooth turn-taking.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--412.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--412",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nSpeaker B's responses are consistently relevant to what Speaker A is saying. Speaker B asks clarifying questions about why the book is liked and what makes it easier to read, directly following Speaker A's statements. Speaker B also picks up on Speaker A's hint about reading other things and asks a relevant follow-up question about reading other genres. The conversation progresses logically based on the initial topic and subsequent details provided by Speaker A.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is mostly good. There are no significant pauses over 5 seconds. There are a couple of brief overlaps where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still finishing a sentence, including one explicit \"Sorry to cut in\". These overlaps are short (less than 2 seconds) and do not significantly impede understanding or the flow of the conversation. The turn-taking feels relatively natural for an informal chat, despite these minor instances of overlapping speech.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2278.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2278",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "10:09\n\nThe responses are consistently relevant throughout the dialogue. Speaker A initiates by asking about hobbies, and Speaker B responds appropriately. Speaker A then asks a follow-up question about a favorite hobby, which Speaker B begins to answer. Speaker A interrupts to ask a clarifying question about the initial hobby mentioned (gardening), which is a relevant continuation of the topic. Speaker B answers the clarifying question and then turns the conversation back to Speaker A. Speaker A provides a relevant answer about their own hobby. All turns are logical and directly address or build upon the previous statement.\n\n\n\nThe interaction starts smoothly with quick turn-taking. However, Speaker A interrupts Speaker B at the 0:06 mark (\"Sorry to jump in\") and then there is a significant pause until Speaker A finishes their rephrased question at 0:22, followed by another brief pause until Speaker B responds at 0:25. The pause between A's initial interruption/start of the rephrased question and B's response is quite long (from ~0:06 to ~0:25, with A speaking part of that time, but a clear gap in the *interaction* flow, including the pause after A's question ends). Specifically, the pause after A finishes their question at 0:22 until B responds at 0:25 is short, but the pause between A saying \"Sorry to jump in\" and completing their thought/question spans a considerable time (0:06 to 0:22), including a long silence before A finishes. The criteria mention avoiding pauses over 5s. The pause from the interruption (0:06) until A finishes the question (0:22) includes a significant period of silence and disruption to the flow. This significant break in smooth turn-taking due to the interruption and subsequent delay impacts fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2761.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2761",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are relevant and follow a logical progression. Speaker A asks about hobbies, leading to a discussion about movies and then shows. Each speaker's response directly addresses the previous turn or transitions logically within the general topic of entertainment. For example, Speaker B answers the question about their favorite movie and then asks Speaker A's, maintaining conversational flow. Speaker A acknowledges B's movie choice and then introduces their favorite show, which is still within the realm of leisure activities. Speaker B responds to Speaker A's show mention, and then Speaker A asks about B's favorite show, continuing the topic. The content is accurate and consistent within the dialogue's context.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is significantly hindered by a prolonged pause between 0:10 and 0:19. This pause is approximately 9 seconds long, which is well over the acceptable limit of 5 seconds mentioned in the instructions and constitutes a \"prolonged pause,\" which is stated as harmful. There is a brief overlap around 0:08-0:09, but this is short and acceptable. However, the lengthy pause is a major issue for fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--526.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--526",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant to the conversation topic, which is Kierkegaard and existentialism. Speaker A asks introductory questions about Kierkegaard and existentialism, and Speaker B provides clear explanations based on Kierkegaard's philosophy. Speaker A's follow-up questions are also directly related to the concepts introduced by Speaker B (e.g., asking for clarification on \"hiding behind our masks\" and its influence). The conversation flows logically from one point to the next, demonstrating strong response relevance.\n\n\n\nBased on the provided transcript format, the interaction exhibits good fluency. The turns are clearly delineated between Speaker A and Speaker B. Although Speaker A interjects with \"Sorry to interrupt\" at one point, this indicates a brief overlap or interjection, which is acceptable according to the instructions (\"Small pauses and brief overlaps in audio are acceptable\"). There are no indications of prolonged pauses or significant overlaps in the transcript structure. The turn-taking appears smooth and natural for an interactional dialogue.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2238.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2238",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are generally relevant to the conversation topic of cooking and eating. Speaker A mentions cooking curry, Speaker B asks about ingredients and later asks about A's preferred type of curry. Speaker B brings up eating takeout, and Speaker A responds to this point before Speaker B pivots back to curry. While there was a slight detour when A didn't directly answer about the spices and instead asked B's preference, the conversation remained within the scope of discussing food plans. The relevance of individual turns is mostly appropriate.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is significantly impacted by several issues. There is a very long pause (over 10 seconds) between 0:24 and 0:35. Additionally, Speaker B's turn at 0:24 is cut off mid-sentence, and Speaker A's final turn at 0:54 is also cut off mid-sentence. There were no prolonged overlaps observed, but the long pause and abrupt cut-offs represent significant disruptions to the flow of the dialogue, falling outside the acceptable limits defined in the instructions.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--514.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--514",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant and logically connected. Speaker A initiates a topic about favorite planets, which speaker B responds to directly. Speaker A then asks for clarification, and speaker B provides it. The conversation flows naturally from discussing planets to the moon and the possibility of visiting them. Although there's a slight ambiguity in Speaker B's response about the \"special lab\" and \"sunburned\" in relation to visiting the moon (it seems more related to viewing the sun or being in a controlled environment), it's still a relevant reaction to the idea of getting close to celestial bodies and doesn't derail the conversation. The speakers follow up on each other's points and express related feelings (disappointment, hope).\n\n\n\nBased on the provided transcript, the dialogue structure suggests a natural back-and-forth conversation. There are no indications of prolonged pauses (over 5s) or significant overlaps (over 2s). The turn-taking is smooth, with speakers responding sequentially to each other's contributions. The explicit \"Sorry to interrupt\" indicates a brief interruption, but it is acknowledged and handled appropriately within the conversation flow, which is typical of natural speech rather than a fluency issue. Assuming typical conversational timing based on the text, the interactional fluency appears appropriate.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--582.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--582",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses between speakers A and B are consistently relevant and logical. Speaker A initiates the conversation by asking about working at Sephora, and speaker B provides specific details about the job, including benefits and customer interaction. Speaker A asks a relevant follow-up question about keeping up with products, which speaker B addresses before turning the question back to speaker A, maintaining the conversational flow. The discussion naturally evolves from working at Sephora to interest in beauty products and sources of information like blogs and apps. Each turn builds upon the previous one, demonstrating good understanding and logical progression of the topic.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are no prolonged pauses over 5 seconds between turns. Although there are brief overlaps at 0:14 and 0:50, these are very short (less than 1 second) and appear to be functional, like speaker A interjecting with a related thought or showing enthusiasm (\"Sorry to jump in,\" \"Oh I was just about to ask\"). These brief overlaps and the overall pacing contribute to a natural, dynamic conversation rather than hindering it. Turn-taking is smooth without disruptive long overlaps or silences.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--554.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--554",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are consistently relevant to the ongoing conversation about bees. Speaker B asks relevant follow-up questions based on the information Speaker A provides (e.g., asking how bees work harder/longer, asking what it means for them to sacrifice themselves). Speaker A provides clear answers that directly address Speaker B's questions and continue the discussion about bee behavior. The dialogue flows logically from one point to the next.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. Turn-taking is smooth with minimal pauses between speakers. There are a couple of very brief, natural-sounding overlaps (e.g., Speaker B saying \"Sorry to cut in...\" or \"Wow, that's incredible...\") that occur at natural transition points and do not disrupt the flow or clarity of the conversation. There are no prolonged pauses or disruptive overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2042.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2042",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are generally relevant and follow a logical flow. Speaker A asks how Speaker B is doing, and Speaker B responds about their day off and plans to play video games. This leads into a discussion about video games, specific consoles (PS4), and titles (God of War, The Last of Us). Speaker A asks about the platform for The Last of Us, and Speaker B asks about a sequel, both relevant follow-up questions. Speaker A confirms the sequel exists and attempts to steer the conversation back to the initial request for game suggestions, which Speaker B then provides (Uncharted). There's a brief moment where Speaker B says \"Wait, from I forget\" which is slightly unclear but immediately followed by a relevant question about the sequel, showing they were processing information related to the previous topic. The interaction maintains a focus on the initial subject of video games and associated topics. Response relevance is consistently appropriate.\n\n\n\nInteractional Fluency in this dialogue has significant issues. There is a noticeable interruption around the 0:33-0:35 mark where Speaker B speaks over Speaker A. More significantly, there is a prolonged pause from approximately 0:35 to 0:44, lasting about 9 seconds, which is well over the 5-second threshold defined as acceptable. While there are shorter pauses and brief overlaps which are acceptable, this extended silence disrupts the natural flow of the conversation and constitutes a significant issue in interactional fluency according to the criteria.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2317.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2317",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates good response relevance. The speakers are discussing their favorite sushi rolls, and their responses generally follow logically from each other. Speaker A clarifies Speaker B's preference (nigiri vs maki), and both speakers share their favorite spicy rolls. The topic of favorite rolls is maintained throughout. Although Speaker A's question \"Do you like anything?\" after Speaker B stated they liked everything is a little redundant, it doesn't significantly detract from the overall coherence. Speaker B's final response about eel rolls and Speaker A's reaction are also relevant to the ongoing topic. The conversation stays on track and responses are appropriate to the context.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is negatively impacted by a prolonged pause. There is a significant pause lasting approximately 9 seconds between 0:46 and 0:55 after Speaker B asks \"What about them?\" and Speaker A starts to respond before trailing off. This pause exceeds the 5-second threshold defined as harmful. There is a brief overlap at 0:07 where Speaker A interjects, but this is minimal and acknowledged (\"Sorry to jump in\"), not a prolonged or disruptive overlap. Other pauses are short and acceptable. The primary issue affecting fluency is the long pause.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2796.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2796",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant. Speaker A introduces topics (how they are doing, attending the symphony, recommending a novel), and Speaker B responds appropriately by answering questions, showing interest, asking for more information, and acknowledging suggestions. The conversation flows logically from one topic to the next, even when introducing new subjects. There are no instances of off-topic or irrelevant responses.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is mostly good with smooth turn-taking in many parts of the conversation. However, there are two noticeable pauses. One pause occurs between 0:14 and 0:18, which is about 4 seconds and within the acceptable limit. The second pause, however, is significantly longer, lasting from approximately 0:40 to 0:49 (around 9 seconds). This prolonged pause exceeds the acceptable limit of 5 seconds and disrupts the natural flow of the conversation, indicating a significant issue in interactional fluency. There were no prolonged overlaps detected.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--666.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--666",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses throughout the dialogue are generally relevant to the topic being discussed at the moment, even with topic shifts. Speaker B responds appropriately to Speaker A's comment about the half marathon. Speaker A then shifts the topic to reading/history, which Speaker B acknowledges and then shifts back to the marathon training. Speaker A responds to the training question and then explicitly shifts back to books, mentioning a specific title. Speaker B immediately responds by asking about the movie adaptation, and the conversation continues discussing the book/movie comparison. While there are shifts in topic, they are either acknowledged or follow naturally from the previous turn within the chosen topic domain. There are no nonsensical or off-topic responses that disrupt the flow beyond typical conversation dynamics.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is strong. Turn-taking is smooth with minimal pauses between speakers. There are no long pauses (over 5 seconds) observed. There is a brief, natural-sounding interruption by Speaker B (\"Sorry to interrupt...\") at 0:10, which is a common feature of conversational turn-taking and does not constitute a prolonged overlap (over 2 seconds). The speakers pick up on each other's turns promptly, contributing to a natural and engaging rhythm.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--487.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--487",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are consistently relevant and logical. Speaker A initiates the conversation about the pool table, and Speaker B responds appropriately. There is a brief interjection by Speaker B to ask a relevant question about tools, which Speaker A answers before returning to the previous question about assembly time. Speaker B provides a clear answer and context. Speaker A then follows up with a logical suggestion related to using the table once assembled. All turns build upon the previous one in a coherent manner.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are no prolonged pauses (over 5s). There is a brief overlap around the 8-second mark where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A, but this overlap is short (less than 2s) and feels natural in the context of a conversational interjection, rather than being disruptive. The turn-taking is generally smooth.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--700.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--700",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A offers a recipe, Speaker B accepts, they discuss the delivery method (writing vs. texting), Speaker A considers potential dietary restrictions, and Speaker B confirms there are none. The conversation flows logically from one turn to the next, staying on topic.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no pauses longer than 5 seconds or overlaps longer than 2 seconds. The turn-taking is smooth and natural, with minimal and brief overlaps that are typical of conversational speech and do not impede understanding.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2076.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2076",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are highly relevant and logical. Speaker A invites B for dinner, and B asks clarifying questions about the meal and dietary needs before suggesting a dish. A acknowledges the importance of dietary restrictions and asks about B's preference. The conversation flows naturally through topic changes related to the dinner plan (drink -> restrictions -> food -> specific dish). There are no irrelevant turns or breaks in the conversational logic.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency has significant issues. There are two noticeable prolonged pauses, one between 00:14 and 00:17 (approximately 3 seconds, close to the threshold but not over 5s) and a much longer one between 00:33 and 00:41 (approximately 8 seconds), which is well over the 5-second limit. Additionally, there is a prolonged overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B starting at 00:31 and lasting for several seconds, exceeding the 2-second limit. These issues disrupt the smooth turn-taking.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2347.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2347",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are generally relevant. Speaker A starts by asking Speaker B what they are doing. Speaker B responds by mentioning their video game project. Speaker A then asks about the project type and shifts slightly to mention playing Roblox. Speaker B picks up on the Roblox comment and shares their experience with making a game there. Speaker A then acknowledges B's frustration and offers solutions related to the problem B described on Roblox. Although Speaker A's mention of Roblox feels a bit abrupt initially, the subsequent interaction follows logically, addressing points raised by the speakers. The relevance is good overall.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency has a significant issue. There is a very long pause between 0:23 (after Speaker A's brief overlap) and 0:32 (when Speaker A speaks again). This pause is approximately 9 seconds long, which is well over the 5-second threshold mentioned in the criteria. This extended silence disrupts the natural flow of the conversation and indicates poor interactional fluency. There is also a shorter pause between 0:12 and 0:16 (around 4 seconds), which is close to the limit but acceptable according to the strict rule. The brief overlap at 0:22 is acceptable. The main issue is the prolonged pause after the overlap.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2074.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2074",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. The conversation begins with standard greetings and moves smoothly into the topic of getting a kitten, introduced by Speaker B. Speaker A responds with interest and asks a relevant follow-up question about the kitten's age. Speaker B, despite interrupting, immediately asks a relevant question about tips for choosing a kitten, which Speaker A then answers. Speaker B then asks if Speaker A is also considering getting a kitten, which Speaker A answers and elaborates on her concerns. Speaker B addresses these concerns directly. All turns are logically connected and pertinent to the topic of getting a kitten, demonstrating strong response relevance.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is mostly good with smooth turn-taking in the initial part and towards the end. However, there is a significant interruption and overlap between Speaker B (00:12) and Speaker A (00:15). Speaker B starts speaking over Speaker A (\"Sorry to cut you off...\") and they both talk simultaneously for several seconds. While Speaker B acknowledges the interruption, the overlap is prolonged and disrupts the natural flow of conversation, preventing it from being consistently smooth. There are no noticeable long pauses (over 5s). The prolonged overlap is the main detractor from otherwise good fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2712.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2712",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A introduces topics (Lightroom, how to test it, other Adobe products, interest in Illustrator, free trial for Illustrator), and Speaker B provides relevant information, suggestions, and confirmations that directly address Speaker A's points and questions. Speaker B's initial interjection about free trials is a useful suggestion related to Speaker A's previous question about testing software, and Speaker A acknowledges and uses this information later in the conversation. The flow between discussing different Adobe products and how to access them is logical and well-managed by both speakers.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is generally good with smooth turn-taking, although there are two brief, acknowledged overlaps where one speaker starts talking before the other finishes (around 0:13 and 0:50). These overlaps are short and do not significantly impede understanding. However, there is a significant long pause between 0:49 and 1:00 (approximately 11 seconds). This prolonged silence breaks the natural rhythm of the conversation and is a notable issue in interactional fluency according to the defined criteria.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--556.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--556",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in this dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A initiates a conversation about carpet cleaning and provides details about the process and outcome. Speaker B responds directly to A's points, asking relevant follow-up questions about the process duration and drying time, and commenting on the perceived effectiveness. Both speakers stay on topic, and their contributions build upon the previous turn, creating a coherent and meaningful exchange. There are no irrelevant tangents or contradictory statements.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is smooth and natural throughout the dialogue. There are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds) between turns that disrupt the flow of conversation. There is one very brief overlap around 0:27 where Speaker B begins speaking just as Speaker A is finishing, but it is well under the 2-second threshold and sounds like natural conversational overlap rather than disruptive simultaneous speech. Overall, the rhythm and timing of the conversation are appropriate and contribute to a natural-sounding interaction.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--401.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--401",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses from both speakers are highly relevant to each other's turns. Speaker A initiates a topic (French film), and Speaker B responds directly with their opinion and related experiences. They discuss specific films mentioned, ask clarifying questions about them, and share details. The conversation then smoothly transitions to the topic of learning French, which is directly related to the initial topic of French films and culture. Speaker A asks about Speaker B's experience with learning French, and Speaker B provides relevant answers. All responses are logical, consistent with the flow of the conversation, and address the points raised by the other speaker.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no noticeable prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds) or significant overlaps (over 2 seconds) that disrupt the conversation. The turn-taking is smooth and natural, allowing the dialogue to flow easily between the two speakers. The timing of the responses feels appropriate for a natural conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2832.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2832",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue is generally relevant, with speakers responding to questions or commenting on previously mentioned topics (like Game of Thrones). Speaker A starts by asking about Cockatiel, Speaker B responds and then shifts slightly to ask about favourite non-chatty shows. Speaker B answers their own question after a pause. Speaker A then interrupts to ask about the Game of Thrones ending (which B mentioned). Speaker B answers that question and then asks Speaker A about her favourite shows (which A had implicitly initiated the topic of shows). Speaker A answers, and Speaker B asks for more details about those shows. While there is some awkwardness in the flow (e.g., B asking A's favourite shows after A initiated a show topic and after A asked about B's mentioned show), the responses themselves are logically connected to the conversation thread. There are no completely irrelevant responses.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency has significant issues due to prolonged pauses. There is a noticeable pause between 0:08 and 0:11 (around 3 seconds) and a much longer pause between 0:18 and 0:28 (around 10 seconds). These pauses exceed the 5-second limit mentioned in the criteria and significantly disrupt the flow of the conversation. There is also a brief interruption/overlap at 0:17, but this is less severe than the long pauses. The prolonged pauses are a major fluency issue.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2243.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2243",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe speakers exhibit strong response relevance. Speaker B asks a question directly related to Speaker A's initial statement about heating rice. Speaker A answers this question before returning to their original query about what Speaker B is cooking. Speaker B directly answers this question, and Speaker A follows up with a relevant question about the recipe. Speaker B answers and then transitions smoothly by asking Speaker A about their cooking habits, which is a relevant follow-up given the context of the conversation about cooking. Speaker A provides a direct answer. The conversation flows logically with appropriate responses and relevant topic transitions.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is mostly good with brief, acceptable pauses. However, there is a significant pause lasting approximately 11 seconds between 0:24 and 0:35. This prolonged silence disrupts the natural flow of the conversation and constitutes a significant issue in interactional fluency according to the criteria. There are no significant overlaps.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2992.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2992",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "Does it make sense to respond to the request by generating the evaluation based on the provided audio? Yes.\nThe user wants me to evaluate a two-person interactional dialogue based on response relevance and interactional fluency.\nI need to provide a `` block, a `` block, and an `` (either 1 or 2).\n\nLet's break down the audio segment by segment:\n\n00:00 - 00:01: A: \"Hey, how's it going?\" - Standard greeting.\n00:02 - 00:04: B: \"I'm doing pretty well. Do you know of any stocks I should look into?\" - Standard response to greeting, followed by a question about stocks. This is a relevant follow-up.\n00:05 - 00:08: A: \"Online trading is a big investment strategy right now.\" - Response about online trading, which relates to stocks/investments.\n00:08 - 00:11: A: \"Do you have any suggestions on where I should start exploring?\" - Speaker A asks speaker B for suggestions on starting exploration, likely about online trading platforms. This feels a bit odd, as speaker A was introducing online trading. It sounds like speaker A is asking for suggestions *from* speaker B, which is confusing.\n00:12 - 00:18: B: \"Sorry to jump in. But I was actually wondering if you have any experience with online trading platforms? I am not sure which one to use.\" - Speaker B overlaps slightly (\"Sorry to jump in\") but then asks a question directly related to online trading platforms, which connects to what A just said. This is a relevant response. The \"Sorry to jump in\" indicates a potential overlap or interruption, but the content is relevant.\n00:19 - 00:21: A: \"I do, and I can recommend a few.\" - Direct answer to B's question. Relevant.\n00:21 - 00:28: A: \"But before that, I was going to mention that all the big tech companies like Apple and Google are seeing high earnings right now.\" - Speaker A shifts topic slightly back to specific stocks (Apple, Google) as high earners, connecting back to B's initial question about stocks. This feels a bit like jumping back to the previous topic after acknowledging B's question about platforms. It's not irrelevant, but it interrupts the flow about platforms.\n00:29 - 00:30: B: \"That sounds interesting.\" - Acknowledges A's comment about tech stocks. Relevant.\n00:30 - 00:34: B: \"And about those platforms, are there any that are particularly user-friendly for beginners?\" - Speaker B brings the conversation back to online trading platforms and asks a specific question, following up on A's offer to recommend a few. This is relevant and helps structure the conversation.\n\nResponse Relevance Analysis:\n- The conversation starts well with a greeting and a relevant question from B about stocks.\n- A introduces online trading, which is related.\n- A's question \"Do you have any suggestions on where I should start exploring?\" feels slightly misdirected (asking B for suggestions on exploring online trading after A introduced it).\n- B's interruption/overlap to ask about A's experience with online trading platforms is highly relevant given A just mentioned online trading.\n- A answers B's question about experience and offering recommendations.\n- A then shifts back to specific stocks (tech companies), interrupting the flow about platforms, but it's still related to the overall topic of investments/stocks.\n- B acknowledges the tech stock comment and then successfully guides the conversation back to online trading platforms with a specific question about user-friendliness.\n\nOverall, the responses are generally relevant to the broader topic of stocks and online trading. There are a couple of moments where the thread feels slightly disjointed (A's confusing question to B, A's shift back to tech stocks), but the speakers manage to stay within the topic domain and build upon each other's points, even if sometimes redirecting the conversation flow.\n\nInteractional Fluency Analysis:\n- 00:12 - 00:18: Speaker B says \"Sorry to jump in\". This implies an interruption or overlap. Let's listen carefully. Yes, there is an overlap starting around 00:12. A is still speaking \"...where I should start exploring. Especially if you're interested in the stack...\" and B starts \"Sorry to jump in. But I was actually wondering...\". The overlap lasts for a few seconds. This counts against fluency.\n- Are there any pauses over 5s? No.\n- Are there any overlaps over 2s? Yes, the overlap around 00:12-00:14 seems to be over 2 seconds. A says \"... exploring. Especially if you're interested in the stack...\" (ends ~00:14) while B starts \"... Sorry to jump in. But I was actually wondering...\" (starts ~00:12). Yes, this overlap is noticeable and lasts more than 2 seconds.\n\nBased on the presence of a significant overlap (over 2 seconds), the interactional fluency is negatively impacted.\n\nScoring:\nResponse Relevance: The responses are mostly relevant, navigating between stocks, online trading, and platforms. While not perfectly smooth, the core topic is maintained. I'd say it's okay, maybe slightly less than 'consistently appropriate and natural' due to the slight confusion and topic shifts, but not 'significant issues'.\nInteractional Fluency: There is a significant overlap (>2s) which is explicitly mentioned as harmful in the prompt criteria. This constitutes a 'significant issue' in interactional fluency according to the criteria.\n\nTherefore, based on the scoring criteria, a significant issue in *either* Response Relevance *or* Interactional Fluency results in a score of 1. Since there is a significant issue with Interactional Fluency (prolonged overlap), the score should be 1.\n\nLet's write the response based on this analysis.\nThe responses in the dialogue are generally relevant to the topic of stocks and investments. Speaker B initiates the conversation about looking into stocks, and speaker A introduces online trading as a strategy. While speaker A's question \"Do you have any suggestions on where I should start exploring?\" directed at speaker B feels slightly confusing given A introduced the topic, speaker B's follow-up question about online trading platforms directly builds on A's statement. Speaker A then offers to recommend platforms but first redirects briefly to specific tech stocks, which is still relevant to the broader investment theme. Speaker B acknowledges this and successfully steers the conversation back to the platforms with a specific question. Overall, the content stays within the relevant domain, despite a few minor shifts in focus. Response relevance is mostly appropriate.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is affected by a significant overlap between speaker A and speaker B around the 12-14 second mark. Speaker A is still speaking when speaker B starts their turn with \"Sorry to jump in,\" and this overlap lasts for over 2 seconds. According to the criteria, prolonged overlapping audio is harmful and constitutes a significant issue. There were no pauses over 5 seconds observed. Due to the significant overlap, the interactional fluency is not consistently appropriate or natural.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 4,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--440.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--440",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe speakers engage in a relevant discussion about a piece of music from their chorus days. Speaker A initiates the conversation about a specific piece. Speaker B identifies the piece correctly and provides a brief description. Speaker A then asks about the sheet music for the piece. Speaker B briefly interrupts to ask how Speaker A came across the piece, which is related to the topic. Speaker A answers this question and then brings the conversation back to the sheet music question. Speaker B responds that they might still have it, linking it back to their chorus belongings like a jacket. All responses are pertinent to the conversation's theme and questions asked, demonstrating good relevance and logical flow.\n\n\n\nThe interaction appears fluent based on the transcript. There are no indications of prolonged pauses exceeding 5 seconds. Speaker B mentions \"Sorry to cut in\", suggesting a brief overlap or interruption, but this is a natural part of conversation and doesn't seem to constitute a prolonged overlap of 2 seconds or more based on the transcript structure. The turns are taken smoothly, allowing the conversation to progress naturally without significant hitches.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2820.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2820",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe conversation begins with speaker A stating they finished Game of Thrones and found it good. Speaker B responds directly with a differing opinion, stating the show declined but acknowledging A's point implicitly with \"Yeah, I guess so\". They then transition smoothly to asking about favorite characters. Both speakers list their favorite characters in response to the question, which is relevant. Speaker A's final question about a \"favorite non-show\" is a sudden and somewhat disjointed topic shift away from the current discussion about characters *in the show*, slightly impacting the relevance of the final turn. However, the majority of the interaction involves relevant responses and topic progression.\n\n\n\nThe turn-taking is mostly smooth. There is a brief overlap around 0:30-0:31, but it appears to be less than the specified 2 seconds, so it's acceptable. However, there is a significant pause between Speaker A's interrupted sentence at 0:31 and them resuming and changing the topic at 0:40. This pause is approximately 9 seconds long, which exceeds the acceptable limit of 5 seconds and represents a significant disruption in the conversational flow.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--687.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--687",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses from both speakers are relevant to the ongoing conversation. Speaker A initiates by asking about getting a ticket. Speaker B responds directly by asking for details (how many tickets). Speaker A provides context and explains the situation. Speaker B logically follows up by asking about the strategy given the show is sold out and suggesting an alternative. The conversation then shifts naturally to weekend plans, mountains, and Whistler, with each speaker responding appropriately to the previous comment or question. The final question about booking accommodation early in Whistler is directly related to Speaker B's mention of going there, and Speaker B's confirmation and subsequent question about skiing continue the related topic. The interaction demonstrates good logical consistency and response accuracy throughout.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. Turn-taking is smooth with minimal hesitation or awkward pauses. There are no prolonged pauses over 5 seconds. There is a brief overlap around the 0:54 mark where speaker A begins their turn while speaker B is finishing, but this overlap is short (less than 2 seconds) and sounds natural, facilitating a quick topic transition. Overall, the dialogue flows naturally without significant disruptions in timing or simultaneous speech.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 4,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2039.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2039",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are generally relevant and logical. Speaker A initiates the conversation about Ken Burns. Speaker B responds by saying they don't know him and asks for information. Speaker A then slightly deviates by asking if Speaker B has checked out other documentary filmmakers, but this is still related to the topic of documentaries. Speaker B brings the conversation back to Ken Burns, indicating interest and asking again what he is known for. Speaker A provides the information, and the conversation continues logically with Speaker B mentioning their wife likes history and Speaker A suggesting a specific Ken Burns series related to history. The slight digression by Speaker A is quickly navigated back to the main topic by Speaker B. Overall, the relevance is good.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency has some issues. There is a noticeable pause between 0:11 and 0:14 after Speaker A asks about other documentary filmmakers. This pause is longer than a small acceptable pause. Additionally, there are overlaps. At 0:04, Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. At 0:26, Speaker A starts speaking again while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. While brief overlaps and small pauses are acceptable, the pause around 0:12 is longer than ideal, and the overlaps are noticeable. This prevents the fluency from being consistently appropriate and natural.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2714.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2714",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in this dialogue are consistently relevant and logically connected. Speaker B directly answers Speaker A's initial question. Speaker A's subsequent question about the trails is relevant as it follows Speaker B mentioning hiking. Speaker B's detailed response about the event and trail levels is highly relevant, addressing A's specific query and providing useful information. Speaker A's final question about the event type is a logical follow-up, seeking more details about the activity described. Speaker B's concluding description completes the information exchange. The conversation flows naturally from topic to topic with appropriate responses.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is problematic in this dialogue. There is a noticeable interruption at 0:08 where Speaker A overlaps significantly with Speaker B's speech (\"Sorry to jump in\") and Speaker B stops speaking. This interruption disrupts the flow. Following this, there is a prolonged period of silence in the audio (from 0:09 to 0:19) which is not a natural conversational pause. After this long pause, the speakers take turns smoothly for the remainder of the dialogue with no further significant overlaps or long pauses. However, the initial interruption and the large silence are significant disruptions to fluency according to the criteria.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 3,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2809.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2809",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A asks about learning cricket and its rules. Speaker B responds by describing the game and suggesting it would be fun to learn. Speaker A clarifies a point made by B (\"slow\") and B provides the clarification. Speaker A then expresses interest and invites B to join, and B accepts. Each turn is directly related to the previous turn and contributes to the conversation about learning cricket.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency has a significant issue. While turn-taking is otherwise smooth with no problematic overlaps, there is a prolonged pause of approximately 8 seconds between 0:11 and 0:20 after Speaker A's interjection and before they complete their question. This pause exceeds the 5-second threshold for acceptable pauses and disrupts the natural flow of the conversation. There is also a shorter pause between 0:25 and 0:29, which is under the 5s threshold and therefore acceptable. The significant pause at 0:11-0:20 is the primary issue.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2719.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2719",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A introduces the topic of starting a business, and Speaker B responds encouragingly and asks a relevant follow-up question. The conversation naturally progresses to discussing using Facebook for business, which leads to clarifying how Speaker B uses Facebook for their business. Speaker A then asks about the type of business Speaker B runs, following up on the mention of \"fitness tips\". Speaker A's questions about challenges and benefits of running the business are also relevant and answered appropriately by Speaker B. There are no instances of off-topic responses or illogical statements.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is mostly good with smooth turn-taking and no overlaps exceeding 2 seconds. However, there is a significant issue with a prolonged pause. At approximately 0:58, Speaker A starts speaking, seemingly interrupting Speaker B, and this is followed by a pause of around 9 seconds before Speaker A speaks again at 1:08. This pause is well over the acceptable limit of 5 seconds and disrupts the flow of the conversation significantly. While other pauses are brief and acceptable, this long pause counts as a significant issue in fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 3,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--437.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--437",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant to the conversation topic of visiting Jamaica. Speaker A initiates by asking if Jamaica is a good place to visit. Speaker B responds positively and mentions aspects like culture. Speaker A then shifts the focus slightly but relevantly by asking about safety, to which Speaker B provides an appropriate answer before adding a related comment about beaches. Speaker A then talks about the weather, which is also a relevant factor when discussing a travel destination. Speaker B picks up on the weather point to ask about the best time to visit to avoid rain, and Speaker A provides a specific time frame. The conversation flows logically from general questions about visiting Jamaica to specific details like safety and weather patterns.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. Turn-taking is generally smooth with appropriate pauses between speakers. There is one brief overlap at 0:08 when Speaker A says \"Sorry to interrupt, but...\" before asking about safety. This is a polite and natural interruption, not a disruptive one, and does not constitute a prolonged overlap (over 2 seconds). There are no noticeable long pauses (over 5 seconds) that disrupt the flow of the conversation. The dialogue feels natural and conversational.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2792.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2792",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "thought\nThe user wants me to evaluate a two-person dialogue based on response relevance and interactional fluency.\n\nI need to listen to the audio and analyze:\n1. **Response Relevance:** Do the speakers respond appropriately and logically to each other?\n2. **Interactional Fluency:** Is the conversation smooth? Are there long pauses (over 5s) or long overlaps (over 2s)? Brief pauses and overlaps are acceptable.\n\nBased on these two criteria, I will assign a holistic score:\n- `1` (Poor): Significant issues in either relevance or fluency.\n- `2` (Excellent): Both relevance and fluency are consistently appropriate and natural.\n\nFinally, I must output the evaluation in the specified format: ``, ``, ``.\n\n**Audio Analysis Plan:**\n- Listen to speaker A's turns and check if speaker B's responses are relevant.\n- Listen to speaker B's turns and check if speaker A's responses are relevant.\n- Pay attention to the timing between turns. Note any pauses or overlaps.\n\n**Transcript Analysis (from audio):**\n- A: Can you help me set up some dong apps on my dong? I know there are a lot of channels that you have to pay for, but I am hoping to get the free ones first. (0:00-0:08)\n- B: Oh, definitely. We can focus on the free channels first and then see if there is anything else you are interested in. What's the name of your duaner? (0:08-0:16) - **Response is relevant.**\n- A: My walk is a Sisspert Dong. (0:18-0:20) - **Response is relevant.** (Seems like a mispronunciation or different term for 'dongle' or 'device type').\n- B: Oh, cool. I have a Sim Smart Non too. Do you have a PFI router hooked up? (0:21-0:25) - **Response is relevant.** (Acknowledges A's device and asks a relevant follow-up question about setup).\n- A: Yes, I do. I set it up myself, with the help of my brother-in-law. (0:26-0:30) - **Response is relevant.**\n- B: Does your round of the default jelly...? (0:31-0:33) - **Interrupted by A.**\n- A: Oh, you mean like... (0:33-0:34) - **Interrupts B.**\n- **(Pause 0:34-0:43)**\n- A: ...the Eman months and password? (0:43-0:45) - **Continues after pause, completing B's likely question.**\n- A: Yes, I think so. It's just the Em is Samsung and the password is password. (0:45-0:50) - **Answers the implied question.**\n- B: Is that correct? (0:53-0:54) - **Clarifies A's statement.**\n- A: I think so. Let me try it. Us is password. That's right. (0:54-1:00) - **Confirms and verifies.**\n- B: You should be able to access your drawn by going to Bente Colon slash slash my.t on your computer. Can you see anything there? (1:00-1:07) - **Provides instructions based on previous info.**\n- A: Yes, I can. The only channel that looks like it's available to me is Srear. (1:08-1:13) - **Follows instructions and reports results.**\n- B: Let's try changing the channel. Press F2 on your keyboard to bring up the channel change menu. There are a lot of popular Dwong shows to choose from. Let's try hundredst. (1:14-1:22) - **Provides the next step.**\n\n**Analysis:**\n- **Response Relevance:** The responses are consistently relevant. Speaker A asks for help, Speaker B offers help and asks about the device. Speaker A provides device info. Speaker B asks about the network setup. Speaker A confirms and provides details. Speaker B provides the next step (accessing the device settings) and then the step after that (changing channels). The conversation flows logically towards setting up the 'dong' and accessing channels. The initial device/term confusion (\"dong\", \"duaner\", \"walk\", \"Sisspert Dong\", \"Sim Smart Non\", \"PFI router\", \"Eman months\", \"Eman\", \"Srear\", \"hundredst\", \"Bente Colon slash slash my.t\") seems to be accepted or worked around by the speakers, maintaining relevance within their perceived context.\n- **Interactional Fluency:** There is an interruption at 0:33-0:34 (A interrupts B). More importantly, there is a significant pause between 0:34 and 0:43 (approx. 9 seconds). This long pause significantly disrupts the flow and goes over the 5s threshold. There is a brief overlap at 0:33-0:34, which is acceptable, but the subsequent long pause is not.\n\n**Conclusion:**\n- Response Relevance is good.\n- Interactional Fluency has a significant issue with the long pause.\n- Therefore, the overall score should be 1 (Poor) due to the significant issue in Interactional Fluency.\n\n**Constructing the output:**\n- Write the response relevance analysis, highlighting the logical flow.\n- Write the fluency analysis, specifically mentioning the long pause and the brief overlap/interruption.\n- Assign the overall score of 1.\nThe responses are consistently relevant throughout the dialogue. Speaker A initiates the conversation requesting help with setting up apps on a device. Speaker B acknowledges this and asks for clarifying information about the device type and network setup. Speaker A provides the requested details. Speaker B then provides instructions on how to proceed with accessing the device settings and changing channels. The conversation follows a logical progression towards achieving the stated goal of setting up apps/channels.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is generally good with appropriate turn-taking, but there is one significant issue. There is a brief overlap/interruption around 0:33-0:34, which is minor and acceptable. However, there is a prolonged pause between 0:34 and 0:43, lasting approximately 9 seconds. This pause is well over the 5-second threshold and significantly disrupts the flow and naturalness of the conversation.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--595.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--595",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are relevant to the conversation topic of choosing between two phones. Speaker A asks for advice, Speaker B provides initial advice and then asks a relevant clarifying question about ecosystem preference. Speaker A incorporates this into their response while also discussing other factors. Speaker B's final response seems to slightly misinterpret A's nuanced point, but A quickly clarifies and adds another relevant factor (resale value). The points raised (ecosystem, camera, software, updates, resale value) are all logically connected to the decision-making process. Overall, the responses contribute meaningfully to the dialogue.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds). There is a brief, polite interruption (\"Sorry to interrupt\") from Speaker B and a short overlap when Speaker A starts speaking at 00:33 while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. These are brief and typical of natural conversation and do not significantly hinder the flow or understanding. Turn-taking is mostly smooth.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2242.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2242",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are relevant and logical. Speaker A asks for show recommendations, and Speaker B responds by saying they don't have any and explains why. Speaker A then acknowledges this and proactively suggests a specific show they've heard about, which is a perfectly relevant follow-up. Speaker B asks for the name, and Speaker A provides it along with a brief description. The conversation flows logically with appropriate responses to each query and statement.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is poor due to significant pauses. While the transitions between some turns are smooth (e.g., B following A's initial query, A following B's query for the name), there is a prolonged pause of approximately 10 seconds between Speaker A's brief interjection (\"Oh, I totally...\") around 00:08 and their next utterance starting around 00:18. This extended pause is well over the 5-second threshold and significantly disrupts the natural flow of conversation. There is also a pause of about 4 seconds between Speaker A finishing their suggestion (00:26) and Speaker B responding (00:30), which is borderline but further detracts from the fluency when combined with the earlier, much longer pause.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--673.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--673",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant to the conversation's flow. The speakers move from discussing favorite presidents to the recent election, media's role, potential future presidents, and specific policy preferences. Each turn builds logically on the previous one, and the questions asked receive relevant answers. There are no instances of off-topic tangents or illogical connections between statements.\n\n\n\nBased on the audio timing provided, the turn-taking appears smooth and natural. There are no indicators of prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds) or significant overlapping speech (over 2 seconds) between the speakers. The conversation flows well without disruptive interruptions or awkward silences.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2237.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2237",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A introduces the topic of cooking and the specific dish. Speaker B follows up directly by asking about the consistency, referencing a past issue, which is a logical progression for a conversation about cooking the same dish again. Speaker A addresses the consistency point and suggests checking it. Speaker B confirms the positive result, and Speaker A responds with satisfaction. All turns build appropriately on the previous one, maintaining focus on the shared topic.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is mostly smooth, with clear turn-taking for the majority of the dialogue. However, Speaker B interrupts Speaker A's first turn, even apologizing for doing so (\"Sorry to jump in\"). This indicates a noticeable overlap that disrupts the natural flow of the conversation at the beginning. While there are no long pauses indicated, this initial overlap prevents the fluency from being consistently appropriate and natural throughout the entire interaction.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 3,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--524.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--524",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses throughout the dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A introduces an interest in politics and the UN, and speaker B responds by discussing the importance of politics and asking relevant follow-up questions. The conversation flows naturally from general interest to specific issues like the criticism of the UN and the effectiveness of its resolutions. Each speaker builds upon the previous turn, demonstrating good understanding and engagement with the topic.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. Turn-taking is smooth without significant pauses (over 5 seconds) that disrupt the flow. There is one instance where Speaker A slightly overlaps with Speaker B (around 0:45) but immediately acknowledges it with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which actually adds to the naturalness of the conversation rather than detracting significantly from it. There are no prolonged overlaps (over 2 seconds).\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2170.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2170",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant and logically flow from one turn to the next. Speaker A asks for tips, Speaker B provides a recommendation, Speaker A reacts and asks a clarifying question about the product, Speaker B confirms and offers further help, Speaker A asks a specific question about suitability for sensitive skin, and Speaker B provides the requested information. The conversation stays on topic and each response directly addresses or builds upon the previous turn.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is significantly impacted by a prolonged pause. While most turn-taking instances are smooth with acceptable short pauses, there is a pause of approximately 9 seconds between 0:08 and 0:17. This long silence disrupts the natural flow and makes the interaction less smooth.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2915.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2915",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates good response relevance. Speaker A initiates the conversation about cooking, and Speaker B responds directly and provides additional information about liking to cook and what they are making. Speaker A follows up with comments and questions related to Speaker B's cooking activity and passion. Speaker B answers these questions, even addressing the slight interruption by Speaker A to finish their previous point before responding to the interruption. The conversation flows logically from general questions about cooking to specific details about recipes, skills, and even a related webpage. All turns are relevant to the ongoing topic.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency has significant issues. There is a noticeable overlap/interruption at around 0:14-0:15 where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. More critically, there is a very long pause (approximately 9 seconds) between 0:54 and 1:03 after Speaker B starts a sentence and before continuing. This prolonged silence severely disrupts the natural flow and smoothness of the conversation, exceeding the acceptable limit for pauses mentioned in the criteria.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 3,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2066.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2066",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are mostly relevant to the immediate preceding turns. Speaker B responds directly to Speaker A's questions about their day, promotion, sandwich, and food preferences. Speaker A reacts appropriately to the news of the promotion and asks relevant follow-up questions about responsibilities and the sandwich details. However, there are abrupt topic shifts, first from the promotion to the sandwich (0:22) and then from the sandwich/unclear utterance (\"giving\") to regular food habits (0:47). While the individual turns are relevant to the new topics, the transitions between topics lack smooth coherence, making the overall conversation flow feel somewhat disjointed. Despite the abrupt shifts, no responses are inaccurate or illogical within their immediate context. There are no significant issues with the relevance of individual turns.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is significantly impacted by prolonged pauses. While there are acceptable short pauses (e.g., before B's responses at 0:15 and 0:53), there is a very long pause between 0:35 and 0:44, lasting over 9 seconds. This pause far exceeds the 5-second threshold and disrupts the natural flow of the conversation. There is also a brief, acceptable overlap at 0:06/0:07. The primary issue is the prolonged silence which indicates a significant problem with interactional fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--451.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--451",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant and logically connected. Speaker A initiates the conversation, and Speaker B responds appropriately. They then transition smoothly into discussing working out and specific types of weightlifting (general, Olympic, powerlifting). Each question is answered, and follow-up questions or comments build naturally on the previous turn. There are no instances of irrelevant or nonsensical responses.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is smooth with very little hesitation. There are no noticeable pauses that are longer than 5 seconds. There is one brief overlap around 0:22-0:23 where Speaker A starts speaking just as Speaker B is finishing their turn, but this overlap is very short (less than 1 second) and falls well within the acceptable limit. The conversation flows naturally.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2335.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2335",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are mostly relevant to the ongoing conversation about watching anime. Speaker A initiates the topic by mentioning watching anime. Speaker B asks what kind, and A specifies. Speaker A then attempts to pivot the conversation to a different *type* of anime (story-driven), which is relevant but introduced via an interruption. Speaker B's response to this suggestion is slightly disjointed, stating it sounds interesting but then immediately mentioning liking movies like \"The Wang\" (unclear movie title), which feels like a small non-sequitur before the conversation returns to anime. The discussion about \"Howl's Moving Castle\" is relevant and follows logically once introduced. Overall, the responses maintain a general thematic connection, although there are some minor awkward transitions and a brief digression.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency has significant issues. There is a noticeable pause from 0:23 to 0:26 before Speaker B responds. More critically, there is a prolonged overlap from approximately 0:46 to 0:56 where Speaker A continues speaking while Speaker B has clearly started their turn (\"Speaking of animation...\"). This overlap is well over 2 seconds and completely cuts off Speaker B for a significant duration, preventing smooth turn-taking. There is another pause from 1:03 to 1:05. The substantial overlap is a clear violation of the fluency criteria and indicates a significant issue.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--573.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--573",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe speakers' responses are highly relevant to the conversation flow. Speaker B responds directly to speaker A's statements and questions about weightlifting and exercise, asking for recommendations as a beginner. Speaker A provides relevant information and suggestions based on the topic. There are no apparent logical inconsistencies or irrelevant tangents.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. Turn-taking is smooth with no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds). There are brief overlaps at 0:30 and 0:41 where speaker B slightly interrupts speaker A, but these are very short (less than 1 second) and do not significantly hinder the interaction. The pace feels natural for a casual conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 3,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2749.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2749",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains good response relevance throughout. The conversation flows logically from initial greetings and checking in, to discussing work-life balance, then transitioning to a new computer purchase, its intended use for graphic design, potential tools, and finally agreeing to exchange tips. Each speaker responds appropriately to the previous turn, asking relevant follow-up questions or providing information that aligns with the topic being discussed. Even after the significant pause and overlap, speaker A picks up the thread by referencing speaker B's likely interrupted point (\"thinking the same\"), maintaining the connection to the previous turn and the overall topic of design tools.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency starts well with smooth turn-taking. However, there are significant issues later in the dialogue. There is a noticeable pause between 0:13 and 0:17 (approx. 4 seconds). More critically, there is a substantial overlap at 0:49-0:50 where speaker A interrupts speaker B. This is immediately followed by a very long pause from approximately 0:50 to 0:59 (approx. 9 seconds) before speaker A speaks again. Both the prolonged overlap and the long pause are explicitly mentioned as harmful issues in the scoring criteria.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--620.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--620",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe speakers' responses are generally relevant to the ongoing conversation. Speaker A initially discusses the financial sustainability of the EU, and Speaker B responds directly by suggesting alternative solutions. Speaker A then shifts focus slightly to America joining the EU, which, while a new point, is related to the overall topic of the EU. Speaker B then directly addresses this new point by proposing a strategy. The dialogue flows logically from point to point, even with the slight topic shift. There are no irrelevant or nonsensical responses.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is smooth with no significant pauses over 5 seconds. There is a very brief, natural overlap at the beginning when Speaker B interrupts, but it is handled gracefully (\"Sorry to interrupt...\") and does not impede the flow of conversation. There are no prolonged periods of overlapping speech or awkward silences.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2747.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2747",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe response relevance has significant issues. Speaker B initially mentions a local concert and a guest performing an \"amazing saxophone solo\". When asked about the performer, Speaker B names \"Anne Sexton\". Speaker A correctly points out that Anne Sexton is a poet, not a musician. Speaker B then attempts to clarify, saying he was talking about the saxophonist and *not* the poet, but immediately follows this by confirming Anne Sexton is a famous poet and mentioning one of her works (\"Suicide and other essays\"). This exchange indicates a fundamental logical inconsistency and inaccuracy regarding the identity of the person Speaker B saw perform the saxophone solo. Speaker B appears to either be mistaken about who performed at the concert or is confusing them with the poet Anne Sexton, leading to a confused and factually incorrect response.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency has significant issues due to a prolonged pause. While most turn-takings are smooth with only brief, acceptable overlaps, there is a very long pause between Speaker B's interrupted attempt to respond at 0:27 and his continuation at 0:37. This pause is approximately 10 seconds long, which significantly exceeds the acceptable limit of 5 seconds mentioned in the criteria. This long pause disrupts the natural flow of the conversation.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--461.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--461",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in this dialogue are consistently relevant and logically follow the conversation's progression. Speaker B initiates the topic by asking for advice on their retirement fund, and Speaker A provides specific recommendations and explanations (Roth IRA, stock index funds), addressing potential concerns raised by Speaker B (withdrawal restrictions, risk). Speaker B's questions and interjections (e.g., asking for clarification on Roth IRA, inquiring about risk) demonstrate engagement and are directly related to the information provided by Speaker A. The advice offered by Speaker A, while not providing highly detailed financial planning, is conceptually accurate within the context of common retirement and investment strategies (Roth IRA benefits, diversification, long-term investing). The flow of the conversation is logical, moving from a general request for advice to specific suggestions and subsequent questions about those suggestions.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is generally good. Turn-taking is smooth for the most part, with Speaker B waiting for Speaker A to finish before asking follow-up questions, except for a brief and natural interjection (\"Wait\") around the 28-second mark. There are no noticeable prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds) that disrupt the flow. Similarly, overlaps are minimal and brief, such as the interjection mentioned or a slight overlap when Speaker B expresses positive reaction before asking the next question, which are common in natural conversation and do not impede understanding or feel jarring. The pacing feels natural for an informative discussion.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--588.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--588",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant to the ongoing conversation. Speaker A asks for an interesting fact, Speaker B provides one. When Speaker B makes a factual error regarding Prince Albert's place in the succession, Speaker A immediately questions this, showing attentive listening and critical engagement. Speaker B then corrects the error clearly and directly, demonstrating good error recovery within the dialogue. The transition to a new topic by Speaker B is slightly abrupt but clearly signposted (\"So what about you...?\"), and Speaker A responds appropriately by discussing their conversational preferences. The subsequent exchange about the television series is also relevant, with Speaker B asking a follow-up question about historical accuracy based on Speaker A's comment. Overall, the responses maintain the flow and topic of the conversation effectively.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is smooth with minimal pauses between speakers. There are a couple of instances of slight overlap (e.g., Speaker A questioning Speaker B's statement about Prince Albert, and Speaker B reacting to the show title 'Journal'), but these overlaps are brief and sound natural, indicating active listening and engagement rather than interrupting impedance. There are no prolonged pauses (over 5 seconds) or extended overlaps (2 seconds or more) that disrupt the rhythm or clarity of the conversation. The pacing feels natural for an unscripted interaction.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2225.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2225",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant and logically connected. Speaker B responds appropriately to the initial greeting and elaborates on their language learning. Speaker A follows up with relevant questions about location, and Speaker B clarifies and provides the current location, leading to a discussion about why they moved. Speaker A's questions about Mandarin Chinese are also directly related to Speaker B's statement about living in China. The content flows well and each turn builds upon the previous one accurately.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is generally good with mostly smooth turn-taking and only very brief, acceptable overlaps (e.g., at 0:06, 0:13, 0:26, 0:43, 0:50) and short pauses. However, there is a significant and prolonged pause between 0:28 and 0:37, lasting around 9-10 seconds. This pause exceeds the threshold for harmful pauses (over 5s) and severely disrupts the flow of the conversation. Due to this prolonged pause, the interactional fluency is significantly impacted.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--690.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--690",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe speakers maintain relevance throughout the conversation. Speaker A introduces the topic of wanting a dog despite a lease restriction. Speaker B asks relevant questions about size and suggests discussing the issue with the landlord, directly addressing the initial constraint. Speaker A acknowledges the suggestion before returning to the topic of the desired breed (Corgis), which is still relevant to the overall theme. There is a brief moment where Speaker A seems to slightly misunderstand Speaker B's question about \"Buddy\" (thinking it's about naming rather than potentially identifying a specific dog), but Speaker B quickly clarifies their intent. This is a minor, quickly resolved ambiguity rather than a significant breakdown in relevance. Overall, the responses are logical and stay focused on the central topic of getting a dog.\n\n\n\nThe interaction exhibits good fluency. Turn-taking is generally smooth and responsive. There are two instances where one speaker begins speaking slightly before the other has finished, indicated by phrases like \"Sorry to jump in\" (0:15) and a minor overlap around 0:34. However, these overlaps appear brief and natural, not prolonged for 2 seconds or more. There are no noticeable pauses lasting longer than 5 seconds. The pace of the conversation feels natural and conversational.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--443.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--443",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in this dialogue are consistently relevant to the conversation topic, which revolves around cooking and cookbooks/magazines. Speaker A introduces the topic of making risotto from a favorite cookbook. Speaker B responds by asking about the process and then inquires about Speaker A's favorite cookbook. Speaker A provides the name of their cookbook. Speaker B then introduces another related topic, a cooking magazine (\"Bon Appétit\"), asking if Speaker A knows it. Speaker A clarifies they don't and asks for more information. Speaker B provides a brief description. Speaker A acknowledges this and links it back to their own cookbook having helpful tips. Each turn builds upon the previous one or introduces a related concept smoothly. There are no irrelevant responses or significant topic shifts without context.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. The turn-taking is smooth with appropriate pauses between speakers. There are no instances of prolonged pauses exceeding 5 seconds or significant overlaps lasting 2 seconds or more. The conversation flows naturally, mimicking a typical conversation between two people. There is a brief overlap at the very end of the audio, but it is minimal and does not detract from the overall fluency of the exchange.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2751.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2751",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are generally relevant and logically consistent throughout the dialogue. Speaker A initiates the conversation about studying music, Speaker B responds and asks about A's preference, Speaker A states their preference, and Speaker B acknowledges. The conversation then transitions to Speaker B's music preference (rock), and Speaker A asks what B is currently listening to, leading to a discussion about a specific song and another suggestion. The only minor point affecting pure relevance is the utterance \"H2mu\" by Speaker A at 0:24, which appears unrelated to the context. However, the subsequent question in the same turn is relevant. Overall, the conversational flow based on topic is logical and responses address previous turns appropriately.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is significantly impacted by a prolonged pause between 0:08 and 0:18, which lasts approximately 10 seconds. This pause exceeds the 5-second threshold mentioned in the criteria and disrupts the natural flow of the conversation. Aside from this long pause, turn-taking is mostly smooth, with no significant overlaps (over 2 seconds) observed. The other pauses are brief and within acceptable limits. The major fluency issue is the long silence.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--478.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--478",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are generally relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A initiates topics and asks follow-up questions that relate to Speaker B's previous statements (e.g., asking about the type of workout, routine, cross-country). Speaker B provides relevant answers to most questions. There is one instance at 0:41 where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A's question (\"What was your favorite distance...\") to ask a new question about running tips. This is a slight deviation from the current topic flow, but Speaker A manages this by politely bringing the conversation back to the original question at 0:46, which Speaker B then answers at 0:52. This recovery demonstrates good interactional relevance despite the brief digression. Overall, the responses maintain coherence and contribute meaningfully to the conversation's progression.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is mostly smooth. Turn-taking is generally efficient, with speakers taking turns appropriately. There are a couple of brief overlaps where Speaker B cuts in (at 0:16 and 0:41), but these are short (less than 2 seconds) and sound like typical conversational interruptions rather than disruptive overlaps. There are no prolonged pauses greater than 5 seconds. The flow feels natural and conversational.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--525.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--525",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are consistently relevant and logical throughout the dialogue. Speaker A introduces cooking, Speaker B responds with their inability to cook. Speaker A suggests trying, and Speaker B explains their reluctance regarding time in the kitchen. Speaker A offers an alternative (ordering in) which directly addresses Speaker B's issue, and Speaker B accepts this and asks a relevant follow-up question about healthy options for delivery. Each turn builds appropriately on the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe interaction exhibits good fluency. Turn-taking is smooth with only very brief pauses and short overlaps (less than 1 second), which are typical in natural conversation and do not hinder understanding. There are no prolonged pauses exceeding 5 seconds or overlaps lasting 2 seconds or more.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2826.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2826",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. The conversation starts with a general greeting and transitions smoothly to the topic of Christmas gifts. Speaker A's gift of collectible DVDs leads to a discussion about the nature of the collection, with Speaker A asking clarifying questions (black and white, Disney, era). Speaker B answers these questions directly based on their knowledge. Speaker B then asks if Speaker A collects anything, leading to a shift to Speaker A's past hobby (D&D), which Speaker B then relates to their own experience. The flow of topic transitions feels natural and the responses build upon or react appropriately to the previous turn. There are no instances of irrelevant or nonsensical replies.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is generally good with clear turn-taking. There is a brief overlap around 0:10, but it is minimal and doesn't impede comprehension. However, there is a significant pause between 0:31, where Speaker A starts speaking (\"Actually...\"), and 0:41, when Speaker A continues their thought (\"before you ask...\"). This pause is approximately 10 seconds long, which exceeds the acceptable limit of 5 seconds. While the rest of the conversation proceeds relatively smoothly, this prolonged pause constitutes a significant break in the natural flow of the interaction, impacting overall fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--439.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--439",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue exhibits consistently appropriate response relevance. Speaker A introduces the topic of looking for a graphics card, and Speaker B asks relevant follow-up questions about the type and offers recommendations based on looking at computer parts. Speaker A's responses provide specific information about the kind of card they are looking for and accept the offer for recommendations, which logically follows the conversation flow. The exchange is coherent and on topic.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. Turn-taking is smooth, with responses generally following promptly after the previous speaker finishes. There is a very brief, natural-sounding overlap around the 0:15 mark where Speaker A starts speaking just as Speaker B finishes their sentence, but this is well within acceptable limits and does not disrupt the flow. There are no noticeable long pauses (over 5 seconds) or prolonged overlaps (over 2 seconds).\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2911.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2911",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nSpeaker A asks about the kind of landscape Speaker B likes, and Speaker B responds by mentioning Zen gardens and having ideas for one. Speaker A then asks about incorporating water features, which is relevant to the topic of Zen gardens. Speaker B confirms this and talks about adding a pond and needing a professional. Speaker A responds that getting professionals is a good idea. The content of the responses is relevant to the conversation topic and previous turns.\n\n\n\nThe interaction begins smoothly with A asking a question and B responding. However, Speaker A interrupts Speaker B at 0:06. Following this interruption, there is a very long pause lasting approximately 10 seconds (0:07 - 0:17) before Speaker A speaks again. This long pause significantly disrupts the flow and smoothness of the conversation, which is a clear violation of the fluency criteria (avoiding pauses over 5s). There are no significant overlaps. The long pause is a major issue for interactional fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--403.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--403",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nSpeaker A initiates the conversation by asking about upcoming trips after mentioning their love for visiting islands. Speaker B responds directly by mentioning a specific trip (Sequoia National Park). Speaker A then interrupts with excitement about Sequoia, asking a relevant follow-up question about Speaker B's prior visits. Speaker B answers this question and confirms they were going to mention the park's features, demonstrating good listening and response to the interruption. Speaker B then skillfully transitions back to the original topic of islands, showing an attempt to manage the conversational flow and ensure the initial topic is addressed. All responses are relevant and logically connected, moving the conversation forward despite a brief detour.\n\n\n\nThe turn-taking is mostly smooth. There is a slight pause (approx 1s) between Speaker A's first turn and Speaker B's response. Speaker A interrupts Speaker B briefly (starting at 00:08, coinciding with the end of Speaker B's sentence), acknowledging the interruption. This overlap appears to be brief and does not significantly impede communication. There are no long pauses (over 5 seconds). Overall, the interaction flows naturally with only one minor, acknowledged overlap.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2010.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2010",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe response relevance is consistently appropriate throughout the dialogue. Speaker A introduces the topic of travelling to Europe, and Speaker B responds by asking relevant follow-up questions about destinations and activities during the trip. Speaker A provides logical answers to these questions, listing potential countries and discussing options like teaching or relaxing. Both speakers stay on topic and respond logically to each other's points about the travel plans.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency has significant issues. While turn-taking is mostly smooth, there is a clear interruption by Speaker A at the beginning (\"Sorry to cut in\"). More significantly, there is a very long pause between 0:38 and 0:48 (approximately 10 seconds) during Speaker B's turn. Pauses exceeding 5 seconds are explicitly mentioned as harmful and indicative of significant issues in fluency according to the scoring criteria.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2855.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2855",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are largely relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A initiates the conversation by stating a problem with health insurance related to dyslexia. Speaker B initially offers empathy but doesn't directly address the core issue until later. However, the subsequent turns from both speakers are directly related to finding a solution: Speaker B suggests contacting the insurance company and then finding an advocate, and Speaker A responds appropriately to these suggestions, including asking for clarification on \"advocate\" and providing the requested state information. The conversation follows a coherent path from problem identification to seeking potential solutions and resources.\n\n\n\nThe interaction exhibits significant issues with fluency due to a prolonged pause. There is a very long silence lasting approximately 10 seconds between Speaker A's turn ending at 00:15 and their next turn starting at 00:25. This pause is well beyond the 5-second threshold and severely disrupts the natural flow of the conversation. There is a very brief overlap around the 00:14 mark, but this is short and not considered harmful. The main issue is the extended silence which makes the interaction feel unnatural and halting.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2053.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2053",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and maintain a logical flow. Speaker A asks about a favorite historical period, Speaker B answers and identifies a favorite figure within that period. Speaker A relates to this and asks for more detail. Speaker B interjects a related question about A's father's favorite figure, which, although slightly interrupting the flow of A's previous question, is relevant to the general topic and A's previous comment about her father. A answers the interjected question but redirects back to her original question about Napoleon. B then provides a relevant answer to that question. The conversation smoothly transitions to asking about each other's favorite historical figures, and the subsequent responses are all relevant and build upon the previous turns. There are no instances of off-topic or nonsensical replies.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is generally good with smooth turn-taking and no noticeable long pauses (over 5 seconds). However, there is one significant overlap between speakers. Around the 0:12 mark, Speaker B begins speaking (\"Sorry to jump in...\") while Speaker A is still finishing her sentence (\"...that you admire the most?\"). This overlap lasts for approximately 3 seconds (from roughly 0:12 to 0:15). According to the criteria, overlaps lasting 2 seconds or more are considered harmful. This instance of prolonged overlapping audio negatively impacts the overall fluency and naturalness of the interaction.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 3,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--584.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--584",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in this dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A introduces the topic of the House of Lancaster. Speaker B immediately follows up by asking Speaker A's reason for supporting the House of Lancaster, which is a direct and relevant question. Speaker A answers, providing a reason and adding a comment about the Yorkists. Speaker B acknowledges this and then transitions the conversation, asking if there are further questions. Speaker A then asks about the Yorkists' reputation, directly related to Speaker A's previous comment about them. The conversation flows logically from topic to related topic within the historical context being discussed. Stating the name is a slight digression, but it's common in casual conversation and doesn't disrupt the overall relevance of the topic exchange.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There is a very brief overlap at the beginning where Speaker B says \"Sorry to jump in,\" indicating awareness and politeness about the interruption. Beyond this minor point, the turn-taking is smooth, with no significant pauses (over 5 seconds) or prolonged overlaps (over 2 seconds). The rhythm feels natural for a conversation between two people.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2314.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2314",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe response relevance is mixed. Speaker B correctly identifies Bill Clinton as the president before George W. Bush. Speaker A then provides details about Bill Clinton. However, Speaker A makes a significant factual error by stating Clinton had no prior experience in government before becoming president. Speaker B correctly challenges this, asking if he wasn't a governor. Speaker A acknowledges the correction. Later, Speaker A introduces another factual inaccuracy, claiming Clinton got his start as a comedian, which Speaker B reacts to. While the conversation stays on the topic of Bill Clinton and the turns generally respond to the previous statements, the presence of multiple significant factual errors detracts from the accuracy and logical consistency expected in a relevant response, especially when discussing known historical figures.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency has a major issue. While some turn-taking is smooth (e.g., the first exchange), there is a very long pause between Speaker B's interrupted utterance at 00:36 and when they resume speaking at 00:47. This pause is approximately 10 seconds long, which significantly exceeds the acceptable limit of 5 seconds mentioned in the criteria and is considered harmful to fluency. There is also a brief overlap around 00:18-00:19, but the prolonged pause is the main detractor from fluency.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2959.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2959",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or logically follows from the previous turn. Speaker A asks relevant clarifying questions (\"What kind of home repair?\", \"Do you mean you are unsure about the tools? Or is it more about understanding the plumbing system itself?\"). Speaker B provides specific, relevant answers. The conversation stays focused on the topic of plumbing repair throughout, and the advice given by Speaker A and the response by Speaker B are pertinent to the discussion. There are no irrelevant responses or logical inconsistencies.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is generally good, with smooth turn-taking in most parts. There is a minor overlap around 00:17 where Speaker A begins speaking just as Speaker B is finishing, but this is brief and acceptable. However, there is a significant prolonged pause between 00:52 and 01:02, lasting approximately 10 seconds. This pause is well over the 5-second threshold defined as harmful and significantly disrupts the natural flow and smoothness of the interaction.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2867.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2867",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe speakers maintain relevance throughout the dialogue. Speaker A asks about travel, Speaker B responds with places they've been. They then discuss specific places (Barcelona, Mexico/Cancun). Speaker A interrupts briefly but on a related topic about Barcelona landmarks, which Speaker B answers before returning to their point. The conversation flows logically from general travel experiences to details about visited locations and aspects like food and beaches. There are no significant issues with accuracy or logical consistency.\n\n\n\nThe turn-taking is mostly smooth, with brief pauses and a minor overlap that are acceptable according to the criteria. However, there is a prolonged pause from Speaker B between 0:49 and 0:59 (approximately 10 seconds) after starting a sentence (\"Speaking of Cancun...\"). This exceeds the acceptable limit of 5 seconds and constitutes a significant fluency issue. There are no overlaps of 2 seconds or more.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2201.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2201",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A introduces the topic of listening to Pink Floyd. Speaker B correctly points out that Pink Floyd is not a new band, which is a relevant correction based on general knowledge. Speaker A clarifies that they meant \"new to me,\" which is a valid and logical clarification. The conversation continues with Speaker A asking about Speaker B's band preferences, and Speaker B asking a follow-up question about lyrics before addressing the preference question. This flow, while slightly non-linear in the last turn, remains relevant to the topic of music and the specific band being discussed.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency has significant issues due to prolonged pauses. There is a pause of approximately 9 seconds between Speaker B's initial statement at 0:08 and Speaker A's response at 0:11, exceeding the 5-second limit. There is another significant pause of approximately 9 seconds between Speaker A's question at 0:19 and Speaker B's response at 0:29, also exceeding the 5-second limit. There was a brief, acceptable overlap when Speaker B interrupted politely. The dialogue also ends abruptly during Speaker B's last turn. The extended pauses significantly disrupt the natural flow of the conversation.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--614.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--614",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe speakers demonstrate good response relevance. Speaker A initiates by discussing home improvements. Speaker B responds by mentioning a recent purchase for their living room, which is relevant to the topic. They ask follow-up questions about each other's purchases (Speaker A about B's \"Wong\", Speaker B about A's piano). While Speaker A shifts topics a couple of times (from their purchase to asking about art/painting), the transitions are understandable within a casual conversation flow, and Speaker B provides relevant responses to these shifts before bringing the conversation back to the piano. There are no instances of completely irrelevant or nonsensical responses.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is smooth throughout the dialogue, with no noticeable long pauses between speakers (none exceeding the 5-second threshold). There is a very brief overlap around 00:16 as Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A finishes their sentence, but this is minimal and well under the 2-second threshold, common in natural speech. The pace and rhythm feel natural for a casual conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--647.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--647",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in this dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A asks clear questions about chemotherapy, and Speaker B provides direct answers based on a personal anecdote about a cousin's experience. The conversation follows a natural question-and-answer flow, with each turn building upon the previous one (e.g., asking about general feelings, then side effects, then specific side effects like hair loss/weight, and finally comfort measures). There are no off-topic remarks or confusing answers.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is smooth and natural, with minimal pauses between speakers. There are a few very brief overlaps (less than 0.5 seconds), such as at 0:10 and 0:31, but these are minor and typical of natural conversation, not prolonged or disruptive. There are no pauses longer than 5 seconds. The rhythm of the dialogue feels very natural and conversational.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2109.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2109",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are relevant and logical. Speaker A mentions getting paint and furniture plans. Speaker B asks a relevant question about color matching, recalling a previous conversation. Speaker A directly addresses the question and then adds a related comment about the project duration. Speaker B acknowledges this (\"It does\") and then offers a practical suggestion for managing the task, which is a relevant response to the comment about the time it will take. The conversation flows logically around the topic of a home project involving painting and furniture.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is acceptable in terms of overlaps; there are brief overlaps but none that seem prolonged (over 2 seconds). However, there is a significant pause in the conversation. Speaker A finishes speaking around the 0:27 mark, and Speaker B's next turn doesn't begin until around the 0:38 mark. This pause is approximately 11 seconds long, which is well over the 5-second threshold for an acceptable pause and disrupts the smooth flow of the interaction.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2913.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2913",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates generally relevant responses to the immediate preceding turns, maintaining a conversational flow about pets, specifically turtles and tortoises. However, there is a significant issue with logical consistency around the 0:50 mark. Speaker B initially states they have a turtle (0:07). Later, after Speaker A introduces the topic of tortoises (0:33) and asks what kind of tortoise B has (0:50), Speaker B responds by saying they are \"not really sure\" what kind it is and it's \"not one of the really rare ones\" (0:54-0:58). This response implies Speaker B owns a tortoise but doesn't know the type, contradicting their earlier statement about owning only a turtle. This lack of consistency regarding the pet type creates confusion and impacts the logical flow of the conversation. Due to this significant inconsistency, the Response Relevance is problematic.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. Turn-taking is mostly smooth. There are a couple of brief overlaps (e.g., around 0:15 and 0:40), but these are short and do not significantly disrupt the conversation flow; in one instance (0:15), Speaker B explicitly acknowledges cutting in. There are no prolonged pauses exceeding 5 seconds. The conversation proceeds at a natural pace without awkward silences.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2217.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2217",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe response relevance is problematic in this dialogue. Speaker B asks a specific question about how speaker A found the transition from violin to viola, mentioning the different clefs and potential challenge. Speaker A interrupts and, instead of answering this specific question, asks a completely different question about whether B considered switching instruments. Although Speaker B later rephrases the question about how Speaker A found the switch generally, the initial specific question about the challenge and clefs is never addressed. Speaker A also makes a minor terminology error by saying \"viola and violin are both called violins.\" While the conversation stays generally on the topic of string instruments, the failure to respond directly to a key question posed by Speaker B represents a significant issue in response relevance.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is mostly natural. There is one noticeable overlap starting around 0:18 where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. This overlap lasts a few seconds but does not completely derail the conversation. There are no prolonged pauses exceeding 5 seconds. The turn-taking is otherwise reasonably smooth and conversational. The fluency issues are minor compared to the relevance issues.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 6,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--406.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--406",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant and logical. Speaker B provides advice and shares a related personal experience in response to Speaker A's initial question. Speaker A then asks relevant follow-up questions about B's experience, demonstrating active listening. Although Speaker A introduces a new topic (grad school) at one point, Speaker B responds appropriately, and Speaker A later loops back to the earlier topic about the professor, showing good conversational recall and continuity. The overall flow of the conversation is logical, with responses building upon previous statements or returning to earlier points naturally.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are no pauses that exceed 5 seconds. There is one brief overlap at 0:11 where Speaker A interrupts, but it is short (less than 2 seconds) and explicitly acknowledged (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), which minimizes its negative impact on fluency. Turn-taking is otherwise smooth and natural, allowing the conversation to progress without significant disruption.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--616.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--616",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are generally relevant to the topics being discussed. Speaker B offers suggestions related to Speaker A's initial problem (leaky pipe) and then introduces a new, related topic (cleaning gutters). Speaker A responds appropriately to Speaker B's suggestions and questions. While the transition from discussing the pipe snake to cleaning gutters is a little abrupt, the subsequent responses are relevant to the new topic. There are no obvious inaccuracies or logical inconsistencies within the responses provided by each speaker.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are no prolonged pauses greater than 5 seconds between turns. There are a couple of brief overlaps (e.g., at 0:14 and 0:32), but these are short and natural for conversational speech, well under the 2-second threshold for harmful overlapping audio mentioned in the criteria. The turn-taking is otherwise smooth and responsive.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2013.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2013",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant and logical. Speaker B's questions directly follow up on the information provided by Speaker A (e.g., asking about renovation plans after A mentions a course, asking about the bathroom design after A mentions redoing it). Speaker A's responses directly address Speaker B's questions and statements. There are no apparent inaccuracies or inconsistencies in the content of the conversation.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is impacted by a significant interruption. At approximately 0:35, Speaker B interrupts Speaker A's turn, cutting her off before she can finish her sentence (\"...are redoing our bathroom and...\"). Speaker B then continues speaking for several seconds (until 0:47) asking a question, while Speaker A remains silent until responding at 0:52. Although the direct overlap duration is short, the interruption itself and the subsequent pause from Speaker A before responding disrupt the smooth flow of the conversation, which constitutes a significant issue in turn-taking.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2710.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2710",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "37:00\n\nThe speakers maintain relevant responses throughout the dialogue. Speaker A initiates with a general greeting, to which Speaker B replies appropriately. Speaker A then asks about Roger Federer, and B confirms knowledge and provides an opinion. B attempts to broaden the conversation by asking what specific tips A needs or if they are focusing on a part of their game. Speaker A focuses the conversation by specifically asking about Federer's backhand technique and its suitability for a beginner, which is a relevant follow-up within the context of discussing Federer. Speaker B directly addresses this specific question, providing a nuanced answer and suggesting resources. Speaker A acknowledges this suggestion, and Speaker B offers further assistance, keeping the conversation focused on improving tennis skills related to Federer's technique. The responses are logically consistent and on-topic.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is mostly smooth with appropriate turn-taking. However, there is a noticeable overlap between speakers A and B around 00:13-00:15 where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B to ask their question. While not extremely long, this overlap is more than a brief interjection and disrupts the natural flow of the conversation, impacting the overall smoothness of the turn-taking. There are no significant pauses exceeding 5 seconds.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_after_interrupt"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--476.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--476",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A initiates a casual greeting, to which Speaker B responds appropriately and reciprocates the question. Speaker A then introduces a new topic about movies on a watchlist, which B addresses directly. A follows up by asking for specific examples, and B provides them. A then interjects specifically about one of the movies B mentioned, asking a relevant follow-up question about its visual style. B answers this question and then attempts a logical topic shift based on something A may have mentioned earlier. All turns build upon the previous one, maintaining coherence throughout the conversation about movies.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent for the portion of the dialogue provided. The turn-taking is smooth and natural, with no significant pauses over 5 seconds observed. There are no prolonged overlaps of 2 seconds or more. Speaker A's phrase \"Sorry to jump in\" suggests a minor interjection, which is a natural part of conversation and is handled without disrupting the flow or creating a long overlap. The dialogue feels like a typical, fluid exchange.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2197.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2197",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A mentions a vacation, Speaker B asks for details about the timing, Speaker A provides the timing, Speaker B makes a relevant comment about sunblock for a tropical destination, and Speaker A responds directly to that comment. The conversation flows topically, even with the interruption and pause.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is poor due to a prolonged pause. Speaker A's first turn is interrupted by Speaker B. After saying \"Sorry to interrupt,\" there is a significant pause of approximately 10 seconds before Speaker B continues their thought. This long pause disrupts the natural flow of the conversation and is well over the 5-second threshold for acceptable pauses. There are also minor, acceptable overlaps at the start of B's second turn and A's third turn.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2306.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2306",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speakers A and B consistently respond to each other's points, building a coherent conversation about Bob Dylan, his music, and concert experiences. They discuss their opinions of him, experiences at concerts, audience reactions, and specific songs (\"Like a Rolling Stone\", \"Blowin' in the Wind\"). The flow is logical, moving from general appreciation to specific details about a concert and the crowd's behaviour regarding new vs. old material. There are no instances of off-topic responses or logical inconsistencies.\n\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is significantly impacted by prolonged pauses. There is a pause of approximately 9 seconds between 0:31 and 0:40, and another pause of approximately 4 seconds between 0:46 and 0:50. The first pause is well over the 5-second limit mentioned in the criteria, representing a significant breakdown in the smooth flow of conversation. While there are brief, natural overlaps (e.g., A interrupting B at 0:10, A saying \"Right\" slightly overlapping B at 0:29), these are acceptable. However, the long pauses are detrimental to the interaction's fluency.\n\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2264.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2264",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in this dialogue are relevant and logically connected. Speaker A introduces the topic of hating cotton candy and avoiding it. Speaker B interjects with surprise and asks relevant follow-up questions about how difficult it is and if it causes anger. Speaker A explains *why* they hate it, focusing on the taste and sugar content. Speaker B then responds to this explanation by expressing surprise, framing it against their prior belief that cotton candy was a favourite. Each turn addresses the previous speaker's points in a coherent manner.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency has a significant issue in this dialogue. While turn-taking is mostly smooth between A and B's later turns, there is a prolonged pause of approximately 8-9 seconds between Speaker B's initial interjection (\"Really, that...\") and their subsequent questions (\"must be tough... makes it make you angry?\"). The criteria specify that pauses over 5 seconds are harmful and indicate a significant issue, which is the case here.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--634.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--634",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe speakers demonstrate excellent response relevance. Speaker A initiates by stating their ambition to be a veterinarian, and Speaker B responds by sharing their interest in science. When prompted, Speaker B specifies astrophysics. Speaker A follows up with a relevant question about being an astronomer. Although Speaker B briefly shifts the topic back to Speaker A's original point about being a vet, this is still within the overall theme of future careers discussed in the conversation. Speaker A successfully navigates this shift and then brings the conversation back to Speaker B's potential career path, showing good conversational management. All responses are logical, relevant to the ongoing topic, and answer the questions posed.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The speakers take turns smoothly with appropriate pauses. There is a minor overlap around the 0:21 mark where Speaker B begins asking a question while Speaker A is still finishing, but this overlap is very brief (less than 1 second) and does not significantly disrupt the flow or clarity of the conversation. There are no prolonged pauses exceeding 5 seconds. The conversation feels natural and easy-flowing.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 3,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2349.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2349",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses are relevant and logical throughout the dialogue. Speaker A asks about the garden, Speaker B explains the issue, Speaker A suggests soil, Speaker B considers other factors (water/sunlight), Speaker A confirms these, and Speaker B realizes sunlight might be the issue and plans a solution. The conversation progresses logically based on the initial problem.\n\n\n\nInteractional fluency is significantly impacted by a long pause of approximately 10 seconds between 0:31 and 0:41. There is also a brief, awkward overlap/interruption attempt around 0:30 where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still talking, followed by both stopping. The initial turn-taking is smooth, but this long pause and the preceding interruption disrupt the flow severely.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--547.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--547",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe response relevance is mostly good. Speaker A asks clear questions and provides relevant information and opinions. Speaker B's responses are generally related to the questions asked, although sometimes brief (\"A lot of people got hurt\"). The response \"Number\" to \"Are you interested in history?\" is unclear and seems like a relevance issue or misunderstanding. However, the conversation recovers and flows logically afterwards, with Speaker B asking a relevant question later about current policies. Given that most responses are relevant and the conversation progresses coherently, the single unclear response is not considered a significant issue for overall relevance.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is smooth throughout the dialogue with no noticeable long pauses (over 5 seconds). There are very brief overlaps at 0:32 and 0:45, but these are well under the 2-second threshold and typical of natural conversation, fitting the criteria for acceptable brief overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2,
+ "error_type": null
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--2990.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--2990",
+ "gt_score": 1,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A introduces the topic of gardening, which Speaker B responds to by sharing their experience. Speaker A then asks a specific question related to gardening (keeping flowers blooming), and Speaker B provides relevant tips. Speaker A's subsequent question about watering frequency is a direct follow-up to Speaker B's tip about watering. The content flows logically from one turn to the next, addressing the stated topics and questions appropriately.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency starts reasonably well with clear turn-taking. However, there is a significant breakdown in fluency following Speaker A's interruption at 0:25. After Speaker A says \"Sorry to cut in,\" there is a prolonged silence that lasts approximately 9-10 seconds before Speaker A asks the next question. This long pause exceeds the 5-second threshold specified in the criteria and significantly disrupts the natural flow of the conversation. While the brief overlap at the interruption is acceptable, the extended pause is a clear fluency issue.\n\n\n1",
+ "predicted_score": 1,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": "error_LongDelay"
+ },
+ {
+ "audio_url": "/root/autodl-tmp/600_train/TrainAudio/PLACES3.5--train--491.wav",
+ "key": "PLACES3.5--train--491",
+ "gt_score": 2,
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses between speakers A and B are highly relevant and logical. Speaker A introduces the topic of medicine, Speaker B confirms interest, Speaker A asks a specific question, Speaker B admits not knowing, Speaker A provides information, Speaker B asks a clarifying question based on that information, and Speaker A confirms and elaborates. All turns directly follow and build upon the previous turn, demonstrating excellent response relevance.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is smooth with appropriate small pauses between speakers. There is a brief overlap at 00:13 where Speaker B interrupts, but it is very short and does not obscure speech or disrupt the flow significantly, especially as B immediately apologizes (\"Sorry to interrupt\"). There are no prolonged pauses exceeding 5 seconds.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1,
+ "error_type": null
+ }
+]
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/ms-swift/asset/discord_qr.jpg b/ms-swift/asset/discord_qr.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2c2f9492af3c3468467ddf713789cccb2a71deef
Binary files /dev/null and b/ms-swift/asset/discord_qr.jpg differ
diff --git a/ms-swift/asset/wechat.png b/ms-swift/asset/wechat.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..adc0f88ed4c3d527b7605c15908156d854fb1b8b
Binary files /dev/null and b/ms-swift/asset/wechat.png differ
diff --git a/ms-swift/clean_transcripts.py b/ms-swift/clean_transcripts.py
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5f47d4272821583d85a7b49cb5dc04dcd8d2f42b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ms-swift/clean_transcripts.py
@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+import json
+import re
+from typing import List, Dict, Tuple
+
+def parse_timestamp(timestamp: str) -> Tuple[int, int]:
+ """Convert timestamp string like '00:15' to seconds."""
+ minutes, seconds = map(int, timestamp.split(':'))
+ return minutes * 60 + seconds
+
+def extract_time_and_speaker(line: str) -> Tuple[Tuple[int, int], str]:
+ """Extract time range and speaker from a line."""
+ # Extract time range
+ time_match = re.match(r'\[(\d{2}:\d{2}) - (\d{2}:\d{2})\] (Speaker [A-Z]):', line)
+ if not time_match:
+ return None, None
+
+ start_time = parse_timestamp(time_match.group(1))
+ end_time = parse_timestamp(time_match.group(2))
+ speaker = time_match.group(3)
+
+ return (start_time, end_time), speaker
+
+def has_overlap(range1: Tuple[int, int], range2: Tuple[int, int]) -> bool:
+ """Check if two time ranges overlap."""
+ start1, end1 = range1
+ start2, end2 = range2
+ return not (end1 <= start2 or end2 <= start1)
+
+def has_same_speaker_overlap(transcript: str) -> bool:
+ """Check if a transcript contains overlapping timestamps for the same speaker."""
+ lines = transcript.split('\n')
+ # Dictionary to store time ranges for each speaker
+ speaker_ranges = {}
+
+ for line in lines:
+ if not line.strip():
+ continue
+
+ time_range, speaker = extract_time_and_speaker(line)
+ if time_range is None or speaker is None:
+ continue
+
+ # Check for overlaps with existing ranges of the same speaker
+ if speaker in speaker_ranges:
+ for existing_range in speaker_ranges[speaker]:
+ if has_overlap(time_range, existing_range):
+ return True
+
+ speaker_ranges[speaker].append(time_range)
+ else:
+ speaker_ranges[speaker] = [time_range]
+
+ return False
+
+def process_file(input_file: str, output_file: str, delete_file: str):
+ """Process the JSON file and separate entries with same-speaker overlapping timestamps."""
+ with open(input_file, 'r', encoding='utf-8') as f:
+ data = json.load(f)
+
+ if isinstance(data, dict):
+ data = [data]
+
+ cleaned_data = []
+ deleted_data = []
+ removed_count = 0
+
+ for entry in data:
+ if 'model_output' in entry:
+ if not has_same_speaker_overlap(entry['model_output']):
+ cleaned_data.append(entry)
+ else:
+ deleted_data.append(entry)
+ removed_count += 1
+ print(f"Removing entry with key: {entry.get('key', 'unknown')}")
+
+ # Save cleaned data
+ with open(output_file, 'w', encoding='utf-8') as f:
+ json.dump(cleaned_data, f, ensure_ascii=False, indent=2)
+
+ # Save deleted data
+ with open(delete_file, 'w', encoding='utf-8') as f:
+ json.dump(deleted_data, f, ensure_ascii=False, indent=2)
+
+ print(f"\nProcessing Summary:")
+ print(f"Processed {len(data)} entries")
+ print(f"Removed {removed_count} entries with same-speaker overlapping timestamps")
+ print(f"Remaining entries: {len(cleaned_data)}")
+
+if __name__ == '__main__':
+ input_file = 'silence_overlaps/transcriptions.json'
+ output_file = 'silence_overlaps/cleaned_transcriptions2.json'
+ delete_file = 'silence_overlaps/delete_transcript2.json'
+ process_file(input_file, output_file, delete_file)
+ print(f"\nCleaned transcriptions have been saved to {output_file}")
+ print(f"Deleted entries have been saved to {delete_file}")
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/ms-swift/dataset.json b/ms-swift/dataset.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..60206cdeec312aecfcc638d7a9f25e20be7a7575
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ms-swift/dataset.json
@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+{"messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "
+
+ 
+
+
+
+
+
|