diff --git "a/.ipynb_checkpoints/cotSFT_gemini-checkpoint.json" "b/.ipynb_checkpoints/cotSFT_gemini-checkpoint.json"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/.ipynb_checkpoints/cotSFT_gemini-checkpoint.json"
@@ -0,0 +1,3712 @@
+[
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/1",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: Wow...I can't believe I'm actually here. This place is amazing!\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:04],[00:12]] B: It certainly is. I never tire of looking at all the tapestries and suits of armor. It's like stepping back in time.\n[[00:06],[00:07]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:08],[00:09]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:12],[00:17]] A: I know! I feel like I'm in another world entirely. Do you come here often?\n[[00:14],[00:15]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:17],[00:32]] B: Oh, yes. My family has been coming here for generations. We have a bit of a connection to the castle, actually. Legend has it that one of our ancestors was a knight who fought alongside the king in battle many years\n[[00:22],[00:23]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:24],[00:25]] B: Uh.\n[[00:26],[00:27]] B: I see.\n[[00:31],[00:38]] A: Wait, are you saying your family has a direct connection to this castle? That's incredible! How did you find out about this?\n[[00:33],[00:34]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:39],[00:51]] B: It's been passed down through stories in the family, and there are even some old documents that mention it. But, as I was saying, the upkeep of the place is a lot of work, and there are always tourists coming through.\n[[00:42],[00:43]] B: I see.\n[[00:52],[01:00]] A: I can imagine that would be exhausting. But still, having such a deep connection to a place like this must make it all worth it.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue for response relevance and interactional fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n1. **A's opening [[00:00],[00:03]]**: A expresses amazement at the location.\n2. **B's response [[00:04],[00:12]]**: B agrees with A and elaborates on the specific details that make the place amazing (tapestries, armor), maintaining topic coherence.\n3. **A's response [[00:12],[00:17]]**: A agrees with B's sentiment and then asks a relevant question (\"Do you come here often?\") to keep the conversation moving.\n4. **B's response [[00:17],[00:32]]**: B answers the question directly and introduces a new, interesting, and relevant piece of information about their family's connection to the castle.\n5. **A's response [[00:31],[00:38]]**: A reacts with excitement to B's revelation and asks a logical follow-up question (\"How did you find out about this?\"), demonstrating active listening.\n6. **B's response [[00:39],[00:51]]**: B answers A's question and then pivots slightly to the practical difficulties of the castle (upkeep, tourists). While a slight shift, it's a natural conversational move that adds another layer to their connection to the place.\n7. **A's final response [[00:52],[01:00]]**: A acknowledges B's point about the difficulties but brings the topic back to the positive aspect of the connection, showing empathy and keeping the conversation focused.\n\nThe dialogue is consistently logical and coherent. Each turn is a relevant response to the previous one, and the speakers build upon each other's contributions naturally.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to analyze the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n* **Pauses:**\n * [[00:03]] to [[00:04]]: 1-second pause. This is a natural conversational gap.\n * [[00:12]] to [[00:12]]: No pause. Smooth turn transition.\n * [[00:17]] to [[00:17]]: No pause. Smooth turn transition.\n * [[00:38]] to [[00:39]]: 1-second pause. Natural.\n * [[00:51]] to [[00:52]]: 1-second pause. Natural.\n * There are no long or awkward pauses in the dialogue.\n\n* **Overlaps:**\n * The only significant inter-speaker overlap is between B's turn ending at [00:32] and A's turn starting at [00:31]. This is a brief, one-second overlap. It occurs because speaker A is excited by what B is saying and jumps in. This is a common and natural feature of an engaged conversation, not a disruptive interruption.\n * The other annotations (e.g., \"Yeah, yeah\", \"Uh huh\") are self-overlaps or backchannels within a single speaker's turn and do not harm the interactional fluency.\n\nThe conversation flows smoothly and naturally without any disruptive pauses or overlaps. The fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/1",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: That's fascinating about Red deer adaptations! Could you tell me more about how their seasonal migration patterns work and what triggers them to move between different altitudes?\n[[00:10],[00:21]] B: Red deer migrate based on weather and food availability. When winter comes, they move to lower areas where snow is lighter and plants\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Right.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Um.\n[[00:19],[00:29]] A: I'm curious about their antlers too - since they regrow every year, how long does it take for them to fully develop and what factors affect their growth?\n[[00:29],[00:49]] B: Male Red deer grow new antlers each spring, and it takes about 3 to 4 months to reach full size. Their growth depends on age, health, and nutrition. Bigger, healthier deer grow larger antlers. The antlers harden by late summer just in time for mating season when males use them for fighting.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] B: Really.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] B: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue for Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n1. **A's first question ([00:00]-[00:10]):** Asks about Red deer migration patterns and their triggers.\n2. **B's first response ([00:10]-[00:21]):** Directly answers the question, stating that migration is triggered by weather and food availability, leading them to lower altitudes in winter. This is a relevant and coherent response.\n3. **A's second question ([00:19]-[00:29]):** Shifts the topic to another aspect of Red deer biology – antler growth. This is a logical follow-up question within the broader topic of Red deer.\n4. **B's second response ([00:29]-[00:49]):** Provides a detailed and relevant answer, covering the timeline for antler growth (3-4 months), the factors affecting it (age, health, nutrition), and additional context about their purpose in the mating season.\n\nThe conversation is thematically coherent, and B's responses are consistently relevant and informative, directly addressing A's questions.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for Interactional Fluency, focusing on extended overlaps and long pauses.\n\n**Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\n1. **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between turns. The transitions from A to B ([00:10]) and from A to B again ([00:29]) are immediate, indicating a smooth and engaging conversation.\n2. **Overlaps:**\n * There is a minor overlap from [00:19] to [00:21] where A begins their next question while B is finishing their sentence. This two-second overlap is brief and shows A's engagement rather than being a disruptive interruption.\n * The short interjections from speaker B (\"Right.\", \"Um.\", \"Uh huh.\", \"Really.\") occur during their own speaking turns. While slightly unusual, they function as filler words or self-affirmations and are extremely brief. They do not disrupt the flow of information or make the dialogue difficult to understand.\n\nOverall, the interaction is fluid. There are no harmful long pauses or extended, disruptive overlaps. The conversation flows naturally and at a good pace.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/2",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:15]] A: I'm really fascinated by how you created Phoenix Rising and want to understand more about your artistic choices. Could you explain in detail why you picked those specific fiery colors and rough textures to represent human resilience?\n[[00:15],[00:24]] B: Absolutely! The bright reds and oranges represent the burning passion inside us that keeps pushing forward. I used\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] B: Mm.\n[[00:23],[00:33]] A: Wait, before you go on about the textures, could you clarify something? How do the smooth parts fit into this symbolism when they're right next to the rough paper textures?\n[[00:34],[00:45]] B: Great question! The smooth areas show how we polish our rough edges through experience. The torn paper represents life's difficulties, while\n[[00:40],[00:41]] B: I see.\n[[00:44],[00:54]] A: That makes so much sense! Now about the composition - how did you decide where to place the phoenix compared to other elements? I'm especially curious about the height and positioning choices.\n[[00:55],[01:02]] B: The phoenix sits center stage because resilience is our core strength. Placing it\n[[00:58],[00:59]] B: Right.\n[[01:00],[01:09]] A: Sorry to interrupt, but could you explain more about those surrounding elements? The flowers and birds seem important but I'm not sure how they contribute.\n[[01:10],[01:26]] B: They absolutely matter! The flowers and birds frame the piece to represent hope that surrounds us. Their placement creates movement that guides your eye upward, just like our journey toward transformation. Every element supports this uplifting story.\n[[01:17],[01:19]] B: I see.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A initiates the conversation with a clear topic: understanding the artistic choices in a piece called \"Phoenix Rising.\" Speaker B's responses directly address A's questions about color, texture, and composition. When Speaker A interrupts with clarifying questions (e.g., about the smooth textures at [00:23] or the surrounding elements at [01:00]), Speaker B seamlessly pivots to answer them. The conversation remains entirely focused on the artwork, and each turn logically follows the previous one, creating a coherent and insightful exchange.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns, indicating a smooth and natural conversational flow. The dialogue does contain several instances of overlap, but they are not detrimental. For example, Speaker A's interruptions at [00:23], [00:44], and [01:00] are brief (1-2 seconds) and serve to guide the conversation with follow-up questions, showing high engagement rather than disruptive competition for the floor. The short backchanneling phrases from Speaker B (\"I see,\" \"Right\") also contribute to a natural, interactive feel. These brief overlaps are characteristic of a dynamic and engaged conversation, not a sign of poor fluency.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/2",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: Could you tell me more about the specific rituals the cult performed? I'm really curious about how dark and twisted their ceremonies were, and what made them so disturbing to Jack as he investigated?\n[[00:12],[00:29]] B: The cult's rituals were truly horrifying. They believed blood sacrifices gave them power, so they'd kidnap victims and drain them slowly. Jack found rooms with strange symbols painted in blood, and altars covered in human remains. The worst part\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:19],[00:19]] B: Right.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] B: Really.\n[[00:28],[00:42]] A: That sounds absolutely terrifying! What kind of people joined this cult, and why would they follow such a violent leader? Did they all believe in the same twisted ideas, or were some forced into it?\n[[00:43],[01:02]] B: Most members were lost souls looking for purpose. The High Priest preyed on people who felt alone or broken. Some joined willingly, drawn by his charisma. Others were brainwashed over time with drugs and isolation. A few tried to leave but were too scared of what the cult would do to them.\n[[00:49],[00:50]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:51],[00:52]] B: I see.\n[[00:53],[00:54]] B: Okay,okay.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and logical consistency of the dialogue.\n\n1. **A's first turn ([[00:00],[00:11]]):** A asks a specific question about a cult's rituals and their impact on a character named Jack.\n2. **B's first turn ([[00:12],[00:29]]):** B directly answers the question by describing the rituals in detail (blood sacrifices, symbols, altars with remains). This is a perfectly relevant and coherent response.\n3. **A's second turn ([[00:28],[00:42]]):** A reacts to B's information and asks a logical follow-up question about the cult's members and their motivations. This maintains the topic and builds on the previous exchange.\n4. **B's second turn ([[00:43],[01:02]]):** B directly answers A's new question, explaining the members' backgrounds (lost souls), the leader's methods (preying on them, brainwashing), and the members' state (some willing, some trapped by fear).\n\nThe entire conversation is thematically coherent and logically progressive. Each response is directly relevant to the question asked.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, focusing on pauses and overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:** There is a 1-second pause between A's first turn ending ([00:11]) and B's response beginning ([00:12]). There is another 1-second pause between A's second turn ending ([00:42]) and B's response beginning ([00:43]). These are natural, brief pauses that facilitate smooth turn-taking. There are no prolonged, awkward silences.\n2. **Overlaps:** There is a minor, 1-second overlap where A begins speaking at [00:28] while B is finishing their turn at [00:29]. This is a very common and natural type of overlap, often indicating engagement, and is not disruptive. The other utterances (e.g., [[00:17],[00:18]] B: Okay,okay.) are extremely brief and, while oddly placed within B's own turn in the transcript, function like non-disruptive backchannels. They do not create an extended, competitive overlap where both speakers are trying to hold the floor.\n\nThe interaction is fluid, with natural turn-taking and no harmful interruptions or long pauses.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/2",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:05]] A: I need a taxi to arrive by 16:45 to take me to the Parkside Police Station.\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:05],[00:09]] B: Where would you like the taxi to pick you\n[[00:07],[00:08]] B: Cool.\n[[00:08],[00:13]] A: I actually need to be picked up from the Parkside Police Station. Sorry about that.\n[[00:09],[00:10]] A: Right.\n[[00:13],[00:16]] B: That's okay. Where is your destination?\n[[00:16],[00:19]] A: I am wanting to go to Stansted Airport Train Station.\n[[00:17],[00:19]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:20],[00:28]] B: Your taxi booking is a yellow Volkswagen with the contact number of 07339912841.\n[[00:22],[00:23]] B: Um.\n[[00:24],[00:24]] B: Uh.\n[[00:28],[00:30]] A: That's all I need, thanks.\n[[00:31],[00:37]] B: Are you sure there's nothing else I can assist you with, such as arranging a return trip or adding any special requests?\n[[00:33],[00:34]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:37],[00:40]] A: No, I'm good for today. Thank you.\n[[00:40],[00:42]] B: Thank you for using our services.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance and logical consistency.\n\n1. **A's initial request [[00:00],[00:05]]**: \"I need a taxi to arrive by 16:45 to take me to the Parkside Police Station.\" This is slightly ambiguous, as it sounds like the destination is the police station.\n2. **B's question [[00:05],[00:09]]**: \"Where would you like the taxi to pick you\". B correctly assumes A has stated the destination and asks for the pickup location, which is a logical next step.\n3. **A's clarification [[00:08],[00:13]]**: \"I actually need to be picked up from the Parkside Police Station. Sorry about that.\" A realizes their initial statement was unclear and corrects it, clarifying that the police station is the pickup location. This is a relevant and necessary correction.\n4. **B's next question [[00:13],[00:16]]**: \"That's okay. Where is your destination?\" B acknowledges the correction and seamlessly moves on to ask for the missing piece of information (the destination).\n5. **A's answer [[00:16],[00:19]]**: \"I am wanting to go to Stansted Airport Train Station.\" A provides the destination directly.\n6. **B's confirmation [[00:20],[00:28]]**: B confirms the booking with details, which is the successful outcome of the request.\n7. The rest of the conversation is a standard and logical closing sequence.\n\nThe dialogue maintains topic coherence and logical consistency throughout. The initial confusion is handled efficiently by both speakers, demonstrating strong relevance in their responses.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses**: I will check the timestamps for gaps between turns.\n * [[00:19]] A ends, [[00:20]] B starts. A 1-second pause, which is perfectly normal.\n * [[00:30]] A ends, [[00:31]] B starts. A 1-second pause, also normal.\n * There are no other significant pauses between turns. The conversation flows smoothly without awkward silences.\n\n2. **Overlaps**: I will check the timestamps for overlapping speech.\n * [[00:05],[00:09]] B: \"Where would you like the taxi to pick you\"\n * [[00:08],[00:13]] A: \"I actually need to be picked up from the Parkside Police Station...\"\n * There is a brief, one-second overlap from [00:08] to [00:09]. This is a natural interruption where A is eager to correct their previous statement. It does not hinder communication; in fact, it resolves the ambiguity efficiently. This is typical of natural conversation and not a flaw.\n * Other overlaps ([[00:02],[00:03]], [[00:07],[00:08]], etc.) are self-overlaps where a speaker uses a filler or backchannel over their own speech. These do not disrupt the interaction between the two speakers.\n\nThe interaction is fluid. There are no prolonged pauses or disruptive overlaps. The turn-taking is natural and efficient.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/2",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:09]] A: What are the biggest environmental threats to the Great Lakes right now, especially when it comes to water quality and how it affects the local wildlife populations?\n[[00:09],[00:19]] B: The Great Lakes face some serious issues that are harming water quality and wildlife. Pollution from factories and farms is a major\n[[00:12],[00:14]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:18],[00:25]] A: Wait, could you explain more about how exactly these invasive species are affecting the native fish and other animals in the lakes?\n[[00:25],[00:34]] B: Sure! Invasive species compete with native fish for food and space, often pushing them out. Some, like zebra\n[[00:30],[00:31]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:33],[00:43]] A: That sounds really concerning—what about climate change? How is that impacting the lakes and the surrounding environment in terms of water levels and temperatures?\n[[00:43],[00:52]] B: Climate change is causing big swings in water levels—sometimes too high, sometimes too low. Warmer temperatures also\n[[00:46],[00:47]] B: Um.\n[[00:48],[00:48]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:51],[00:59]] A: Are there any major programs or initiatives currently working to fix these problems, especially the pollution and invasive species issues?\n[[01:00],[01:09]] B: Yes! The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is a big one—it funds cleanup projects and fights pollution. There are\n[[01:03],[01:03]] B: Cool.\n[[01:04],[01:05]] B: Uh huh.\n[[01:09],[01:17]] A: That’s good to hear—but how effective have these programs been so far, and what challenges do they still face in making real progress?\n[[01:18],[01:30]] B: They’ve had some success, like reducing pollution in certain areas and slowing invasive species. But funding shortages and the sheer size of the lakes make it tough to solve everything quickly.\n[[01:21],[01:22]] B: Mhm.\n[[01:23],[01:23]] B: Uh.\n[[01:24],[01:25]] B: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains a high level of relevance and coherence. Speaker A initiates the conversation with a clear question about environmental threats to the Great Lakes. Speaker B responds directly by identifying pollution as a major issue. Speaker A then guides the conversation through a series of logical follow-up questions, exploring specific threats like invasive species and climate change, before moving on to potential solutions and their effectiveness. Speaker B consistently provides relevant and informative answers that directly address Speaker A's questions. The conversation progresses logically from identifying problems to discussing solutions, with each turn building upon the previous one. The topic is maintained throughout without any digressions or inconsistencies.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth and natural, resembling a very engaged conversation. There are a few instances of minor overlap, such as at [00:18], [00:33], and [00:51], where Speaker A begins their next question just as Speaker B is finishing their sentence. These overlaps are very brief (about one second) and are not disruptive; rather, they indicate an enthusiastic and fast-paced dialogue. There are no extended, confusing overlaps where both speakers talk over each other. Similarly, the pauses between turns are minimal and natural, such as the one-second gaps at [00:59] and [01:17]. These short pauses are typical for turn-taking and do not disrupt the conversational flow. The presence of frequent, short backchannels (e.g., \"Mm hmm,\" \"Uh huh,\" \"Cool\") also contributes to a fluent and interactive feel, showing active listening.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/2",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:13]] A: This sounds like an interesting novel concept. Could you tell me more about how the virus spread so quickly and what makes these teenagers immune when others weren't? I'm curious about the science behind their survival.\n[[00:14],[00:22]] B: The virus spread through airborne transmission and contaminated surfaces. Most people got\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:21],[00:33]] A: That makes sense. Could you describe some of the biggest daily challenges the group faces while trying to survive in this post-apocalyptic world? What are their main concerns when they wake up each morning?\n[[00:34],[00:58]] B: Every day brings tough challenges. Finding clean water is their top priority, followed by securing enough food. They constantly worry about infected people still roaming the cities. Shelter safety and medical supplies are other major concerns. The emotional toll of losing everyone they knew weighs heavily on them too.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Really.\n[[00:45],[00:46]] B: Mm hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A initiates the conversation with a clear, two-part question about the premise of a story. Speaker B directly answers the first part of the question about how the virus spread. Speaker A then smoothly transitions the conversation to a new, related topic about the daily challenges of the survivors. Speaker B provides a detailed, coherent, and highly relevant answer that directly addresses A's question, listing multiple specific challenges. The conversation follows a logical and coherent path, with each turn building naturally on the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, disruptive pauses between turns; the gaps are brief and typical of natural conversation (e.g., the 1-second pause between 00:13 and 00:14). The transcript notes a brief, one-second overlap where A begins speaking at [00:21] just before B finishes at [00:22]. This is a minor, non-disruptive overlap common in natural turn-taking. The other listed timestamps for speaker B ([00:16], [00:18], etc.) are not overlaps with speaker A but are interjections or fillers within B's own speaking turn. They do not disrupt the flow of the interaction between the two speakers.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/2",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: I want a reservation that has a cheap price and should be in the east.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Really.\n[[00:04],[00:07]] B: We have three with your specification\n[[00:05],[00:06]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:06],[00:09]] A: Oh, I also need it to have free parking and I want a guest house.\n[[00:07],[00:08]] A: Mm.\n[[00:10],[00:12]] B: How about Allenbell? It looks great.\n[[00:13],[00:18]] A: Sure, please book it for 1 person for 5 nights starting on Thursday.\n[[00:15],[00:17]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:19],[00:25]] B: Booking was unsuccessful. Perhaps another day or you might want to consider a different guest house.\n[[00:21],[00:23]] B: Right.\n[[00:26],[00:28]] A: How about starting on Friday?\n[[00:30],[00:36]] B: Booking was successful for Friday. Reference number is: VRX491JS.\n[[00:32],[00:33]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:37],[00:41]] A: Thank you so much! That is all I needed.\n[[00:38],[00:39]] A: Really.\n[[00:41],[00:43]] B: Thank you, goodbye.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance.\n\n1. **A [00:00]:** Initiates the conversation with a clear request for a cheap reservation in the east.\n2. **B [00:04]:** Responds directly by stating there are three options matching the criteria. This is relevant.\n3. **A [00:06]:** Adds more constraints (free parking, guesthouse). This is a logical refinement of the initial request.\n4. **B [00:10]:** Offers a specific suggestion (\"Allenbell\") that presumably meets all stated criteria. This is a relevant and helpful next step.\n5. **A [00:13]:** Accepts the suggestion and provides booking details (1 person, 5 nights, Thursday). The conversation flows logically.\n6. **B [00:19]:** Reports that the booking failed and offers solutions (try another day or another guesthouse). This is a relevant and crucial update.\n7. **A [00:26]:** Acts on one of the suggestions by asking to try another day (\"Friday\"). This is a direct and logical response.\n8. **B [00:30]:** Confirms the booking was successful for the new day and provides a reference number. This directly answers A's request.\n9. **A [00:37] & B [00:41]:** The dialogue concludes with appropriate closing remarks from both speakers.\n\nThe entire conversation is coherent and logically consistent. Each turn is a relevant response to the previous one, and the speakers work together to achieve the goal of booking a reservation.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:** I will check the timestamps for significant gaps between turns.\n * Between A's turn ending at [00:09] and B's starting at [00:10], there is a 1-second pause. This is normal.\n * Between B's turn ending at [00:12] and A's starting at [00:13], there is a 1-second pause. This is normal.\n * Between A's turn ending at [00:28] and B's starting at [00:30], there is a 2-second pause. This is a perfectly acceptable pause, likely for the system to process the new booking request. It is not prolonged or harmful to the flow.\n * Other transitions are immediate or have negligible pauses.\n * Conclusion: There are no long, disruptive pauses.\n\n2. **Overlaps:** I will check the timestamps for overlapping speech.\n * [[00:05],[00:06]] B (\"Yeah, yeah.\") overlaps with A's turn [[00:06],[00:09]]. This is a very brief, one-second overlap where B is providing a backchannel. It's a natural part of conversation and not disruptive.\n * [[00:07],[00:08]] A (\"Mm.\") overlaps with B's turn [[00:04],[00:07]]. This is another very brief, one-second backchannel, which is also natural and non-disruptive.\n * Other overlaps (e.g., A at [00:01], B at [00:21], A at [00:38]) are self-overlaps or disfluencies within a single speaker's turn, not interruptions of the other speaker. These are common in natural speech.\n * Conclusion: There are no extended or harmful overlaps that disrupt the conversation. The few instances of overlap are brief and function as natural backchannels.\n\nBoth fluency aspects are excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/4",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Thanks, Zach. You look pretty hot yourself.\n[[00:02],[00:05]] B: So, you want to get out of here and go somewhere more private?\n[[00:03],[00:04]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:06],[00:10]] A: I don't know, Zach. I don't want to do anything that might\n[[00:07],[00:08]] A: Sure.\n[[00:09],[00:16]] B: Jeopardize our friendship? I get it, Xzavion. But what if we just take it slow and see where things go?\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:13],[00:13]] B: Sure.\n[[00:16],[00:27]] A: Come on, Xzavion. I promise I'll be a perfect gentleman. Besides, I think we both know there's something more between us than just hanging out as friends.\n[[00:19],[00:21]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:22],[00:22]] A: Really.\n[[00:28],[00:32]] B: Friendship, right? I've felt it too. That's why I think we should give it a chance.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: I see.\n[[00:32],[00:35]] A: Alright, Zach. Let's go.\n[[00:35],[00:38]] B: Xzavion, I've wanted to kiss you for so long.\n[[00:37],[00:37]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:39],[00:42]] A: I know, Zach. I feel the same way.\n[[00:40],[00:41]] A: Uh huh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance and logical consistency, despite an apparent speaker labeling error in the transcript. The conversation follows a clear and coherent narrative: B makes a romantic proposition to A, A expresses hesitation about jeopardizing their friendship, B offers reassurance and persuasion, and A ultimately agrees. Each turn logically progresses the conversation. The turn at `[[00:16],[00:27]]` (\"Come on, Xzavion...\") is attributed to speaker A, which seems illogical as A would be addressing themself. However, the content of this line is a perfect continuation of B's persuasive argument. It's highly probable that this is a transcription error and speaker B actually delivered this line. Assuming this correction, the dialogue is thematically coherent and all responses are relevant to the preceding turns.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency of the dialogue is excellent. There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns; the exchanges are quick and natural, indicating a high level of engagement. For instance, there are immediate turn transitions at `[00:16]`, `[00:32]`, and `[00:35]`. There is a brief, natural overlap from `[00:09]` to `[00:10]` where speaker B correctly anticipates and finishes speaker A's sentence (\"...jeopardize our friendship?\"). This type of cooperative overlap enhances the conversational flow. While the transcript shows several instances of speakers uttering short backchannels over their own main sentences (e.g., `[[00:03],[00:04]]`, `[[00:11],[00:12]]`), these are minor disfluencies within a single turn and do not disrupt the interaction between the two speakers.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/4",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:05]] A: I'm so glad I made it here so quickly! I was worried I was going to be\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Right.\n[[00:04],[00:08]] B: Sorry to cut you off, but I just wanted to say you're definitely not late. Come on in.\n[[00:06],[00:07]] B: Um.\n[[00:08],[00:16]] A: Thank you. It's really good to see you. I've been feeling a bit lonely lately and it's nice to spend some quality time with a good friend.\n[[00:11],[00:12]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] A: Really.\n[[00:16],[00:23]] B: I completely understand. I've been feeling a bit the same way. It's really important to have friends we can rely on.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] B: Mm.\n[[00:24],[00:27]] A: Yes, it is. I'm really glad we're friends.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue for response relevance and interactional fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n1. **A [00:00-00:05] -> B [00:04-00:08]:** Speaker A expresses worry about being late. Speaker B directly addresses this concern, reassuring A that they are not late. This is a perfectly relevant and coherent response.\n2. **B [00:04-00:08] -> A [00:08-00:16]:** After being welcomed, Speaker A expresses gratitude and then transitions into a more personal topic about feeling lonely and valuing their friendship. This is a natural progression in a conversation between friends.\n3. **A [00:08-00:16] -> B [00:16-00:23]:** Speaker B responds with empathy (\"I completely understand. I've been feeling a bit the same way\") and reinforces the importance of friendship. This is a supportive and logically consistent response to A's disclosure.\n4. **B [00:16-00:23] -> A [00:24-00:27]:** Speaker A agrees with B's sentiment and reciprocates the feeling of friendship. This is a coherent and fitting conclusion to the exchange.\n\nOverall, the dialogue is thematically coherent. Each speaker's turn is a logical and relevant response to the previous one. The conversation flows naturally from a simple greeting to a deeper, more meaningful exchange.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pause Analysis:**\n* There's a brief, natural pause of about 1-2 seconds between A's turn ending around [00:02] and B's turn starting at [00:04].\n* There's a 1-second pause between B's turn ending at [00:23] and A's turn starting at [00:24].\n* All other speaker transitions are immediate.\n* Conclusion: There are no long or awkward pauses that disrupt the conversational flow. The timing is natural.\n\n**Overlap Analysis:**\n* **[00:04]-[00:05]:** Speaker B overlaps with Speaker A. However, B immediately says, \"Sorry to cut you off,\" acknowledging the interruption. This type of overlap is common and functional in natural conversation, used here for reassurance. It is not a harmful, extended overlap.\n* **[00:18]-[00:21]:** Speaker B provides backchannel cues (\"Mm hmm,\" \"Mm\") while Speaker A is talking. This is not a disruptive overlap; it's a sign of active listening and engagement, which contributes positively to interactional fluency.\n* Conclusion: The overlaps present are functional (polite interruption, backchanneling) and do not harm the fluency. They actually make the dialogue sound more natural and interactive.\n\nBoth pause and overlap analysis indicate excellent interactional fluency.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/4",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Hey, do you want to get coffee?\n[[00:03],[00:05]] B: Yeah, I could use a break. Let's go.\n[[00:05],[00:07]] A: So, how's your week been?\n[[00:08],[00:14]] B: It's been good. I've been really busy with work and school, but it's all good. How about\n[[00:10],[00:12]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:13],[00:18]] A: Busy with work and school? That sounds intense. How do you manage both?\n[[00:15],[00:16]] A: Really.\n[[00:19],[00:24]] B: It's a bit challenging, but I try to keep a strict schedule. I've been good too. I just got a new haircut.\n[[00:20],[00:22]] B: Really.\n[[00:26],[00:28]] A: Oh, yeah? I like it!\n[[00:29],[00:33]] B: Thanks. I gave it to myself last night after watching some tutorials.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: I see.\n[[00:34],[00:39]] A: Wait, you did it yourself? That's amazing! How did you learn to cut your own hair?\n[[00:36],[00:37]] A: Um.\n[[00:41],[00:49]] B: I watched a lot of tutorials online and practiced a bit. That's so cool! I wish I could do that, but my hair is too thick and curly.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:45],[00:46]] B: Mm.\n[[00:51],[00:57]] A: Yeah, it's definitely not easy. But it's worth it to be able to do your own hair and not have to rely on anyone else.\n[[00:54],[00:55]] A: Cool.\n[[00:59],[01:02]] B: Absolutely. So, how was your weekend?",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance and topic coherence throughout. The conversation flows logically from an invitation for coffee to catching up on each other's weeks. Speaker A asks about B's week, and B responds appropriately, leading to a sub-topic about managing work and school. The conversation then naturally shifts to B's new haircut, which becomes the main topic for the latter half of the interaction. Each turn is a direct and logical response to the preceding one.\n\nThere is a single point of logical inconsistency in the transcript at `[[00:41],[00:49]]`, where Speaker B answers a question and then immediately says, \"That's so cool! I wish I could do that...\", which sounds like a response one would make to B's own statement. This is almost certainly a transcription error where Speaker A's line was merged with Speaker B's. Assuming the underlying conversation was logical (i.e., A said the second part), the overall relevance is excellent.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are several short pauses between turns (e.g., `[[00:01],[00:03]]`, `[[00:24],[00:26]]`), but these are all 1-2 seconds long and represent natural thinking time in a conversation; there are no prolonged or awkward silences.\n\nThe transcript shows numerous instances of overlapping speech (e.g., `[[00:10],[00:12]]`, `[[00:15],[00:16]]`, `[[00:31],[00:32]]`). However, these are all very brief backchannels (\"Mhm\", \"Really\", \"I see\") that appear to be misattributed to the person already speaking. Assuming they were correctly spoken by the listener in each case, they demonstrate active listening and support the speaker without being disruptive. There are no extended, competitive overlaps that would harm fluency. The turn-taking is smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/4",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:15]] A: Your haikus about nature and humans are really thought-provoking. Could you write three more that specifically show how we depend on nature for survival, like for food and clean air? I'd love to hear poetic ways to express these vital connections.\n[[00:16],[00:28]] B: Golden fields of wheat Bowing to the farmer's hand Life grows from the earth Trees breathe out for us Gifting air so pure and sweet Our\n[[00:20],[00:21]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:27],[00:41]] A: These are wonderful! Now I'm curious about how you'd describe the changing seasons in haiku form. Could you create four seasonal haikus that capture the unique feelings of spring, summer, fall and winter?\n[[00:42],[01:04]] B: Spring's warm gentle rain \nAwakens sleeping flowers \nLife stirs once again \n\nSummer sun blazes \nChildren laugh in sprinkler mist \nJoy in every drop \n\nAutumn leaves tumble \nPainting earth in fiery hues \nNature's last bright show \n\nWinter's hush descends \nSnowflakes dance on frozen air \nEarth sleeps peacefully\n[[00:48],[00:49]] B: Really.\n[[00:50],[00:51]] B: Right.\n[[00:52],[00:53]] B: Yeah, yeah.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user A's first request is for three haikus about human dependence on nature. User B begins providing haikus that directly address this theme (\"Golden fields of wheat\" for food, \"Trees breathe out for us\" for air). User A then praises these and makes a new, related request for four seasonal haikus. User B fulfills this request perfectly, providing a haiku for each of the four seasons. The conversation is logically consistent and stays on topic. All responses are highly relevant to the requests.\n\n\n\nThe turn-taking in the dialogue is smooth and natural. There are no prolonged pauses between turns; the gaps are typically one second, which is normal for conversation. There are several very brief overlaps, such as at [00:27]-[00:28], which is a natural transition. There are also several instances of speaker B uttering short words like \"Yeah, yeah\" or \"Right\" while they are in the middle of reciting the haikus. These are not extended overlaps that disrupt the flow; they are very short and do not obscure the main content. They function more like brief filler words and do not harm the overall fluency of the interaction.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/6",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Hey, Amare. What's up?\n[[00:03],[00:05]] B: Not much. Just hanging out at\n[[00:05],[00:08]] A: Sorry to jump in, but I was actually wondering if you wanted to hang out tomorrow.\n[[00:06],[00:07]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:10],[00:13]] B: I can't tomorrow. I'm busy.\n[[00:13],[00:16]] A: Oh, that's too bad. What are you planning to do?\n[[00:14],[00:16]] A: Um.\n[[00:18],[00:20]] B: I have plans with my family.\n[[00:21],[00:24]] A: Oh, okay. Well, maybe another time then.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue follows a logical and coherent path. Speaker A starts with a greeting, then pivots to a specific request (to hang out). Speaker B responds directly to the request. Speaker A follows up with a relevant question about B's plans. B answers the question, and A concludes the exchange politely. Each turn is a logical reaction to the previous one, maintaining topic coherence throughout.\n\n\n\nThe interaction has a few noticeable elements. There is a clear interruption at [[00:05]] where A cuts off B. However, A immediately acknowledges it with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which makes the interruption feel natural rather than rude. There are several 2-second pauses between turns (e.g., [[00:01],[00:03]], [[00:08],[00:10]], [[00:16],[00:18]]). These pauses are noticeable but are not long enough to be considered harmful or to disrupt the conversational flow significantly. They could indicate natural hesitation or thinking time. The overlaps are brief and handled appropriately. Overall, the fluency is natural and acceptable for a casual conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/6",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:13]] A: I love how you've incorporated historical figures into this hip hop track celebrating black women! Could you suggest some musical elements that would complement these powerful lyrics and make the song even more impactful?\n[[00:14],[00:26]] B: Absolutely! For this empowering track, we could use a strong drumbeat with deep bass to match the powerful message. Adding soulful background vocals and some samples of\n[[00:20],[00:21]] B: Really.\n[[00:25],[00:38]] A: That sounds perfect for setting the right tone! Since we're honoring both historical and contemporary black women, could you recommend some modern artists who might be great collaborators for this project?\n[[00:39],[01:02]] B: Definitely! Artists like Queen Latifah, Megan Thee Stallion, or Janelle Monáe would bring amazing energy. Noname or Rapsody could add deep lyrical content, while Beyoncé or Alicia Keys might contribute powerful vocals. Each artist would bring their unique style while staying true to the song's message of black female empowerment.\n[[00:46],[00:46]] B: I see.\n[[00:47],[00:48]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:49],[00:51]] B: Uh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue based on Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n1. **A's first question ([[00:00],[00:13]]):** A asks for musical element suggestions for a hip-hop track celebrating black women.\n2. **B's first response ([[00:14],[00:26]]):** B directly answers the question by suggesting a strong drumbeat, deep bass, and soulful background vocals. This response is perfectly relevant and coherent with the initial prompt.\n3. **A's second question ([[00:25],[00:38]]):** A builds on the previous turn by asking for modern artist collaboration suggestions, keeping the conversation on the topic of creating this specific song. The question is a logical next step.\n4. **B's second response ([[00:39],[01:02]]):** B provides a list of suitable artists and explains why each would be a good fit, directly and comprehensively answering A's question. The suggestions are consistent with the song's theme of \"black female empowerment.\"\n\nOverall, the dialogue is highly coherent and logically structured. Each response is directly relevant to the preceding turn, and the conversation progresses naturally on a single topic.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue's Interactional Fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pause Analysis:**\n1. **Pause between A's first turn and B's response:** A ends at [00:13], and B begins at [00:14]. This is a 1-second pause, which is natural and indicates smooth turn-taking.\n2. **Pause between A's second turn and B's response:** A ends at [00:38], and B begins at [00:39]. This is another natural 1-second pause.\nThere are no prolonged or awkward pauses in the dialogue.\n\n**Overlap Analysis:**\n1. **Overlap between B's first turn and A's second turn:** B's turn ends at [00:26], and A's turn begins at [00:25]. This creates a 1-second overlap. This type of brief overlap is very common in natural conversation, where one speaker begins slightly before the other has completely finished. It is not disruptive.\n2. **Internal utterances from B:** The utterances \"Really,\" \"I see,\" \"Mhm,\" and \"Uh\" occur during B's own speaking turns. They are not overlaps with speaker A but are likely fillers or self-affirmations. They do not disrupt the flow of the interaction between the two speakers.\n\nOverall, the interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth, pauses are minimal and natural, and the single brief overlap does not harm the conversational flow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/6",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: I'm not sure how to answer this question. Could you help me understand it better?\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Really.\n[[00:04],[00:09]] B: Of course, Justina. Let's take a look at it together. What do you think the question is ask\n[[00:06],[00:07]] B: Uh.\n[[00:08],[00:13]] A: I think it's asking about how different religions view the afterlife.\n[[00:11],[00:12]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:14],[00:20]] B: Right, that's a good interpretation. Can you think of any specific examples from class that might help answer the question?\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Cool.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Cool.\n[[00:20],[00:26]] A: Yeah, we talked about how Hindus believe in reincarnation and how Christians believe in heaven and hell.\n[[00:22],[00:23]] A: I see.\n[[00:26],[00:35]] B: Exactly. So based on what we know, what do you think the answer to the question might involve in terms of how these beliefs influence people's lives?\n[[00:29],[00:31]] B: Um.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Uh.\n[[00:36],[00:45]] A: Actually, I think it depends on what religion you are. If you're Hindu, then you believe in reincarnation, and if you're Christian, then you believe in heaven or hell.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] A: Um.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] A: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation follows a logical and coherent path. Speaker A initiates by asking for help understanding a question. Speaker B responds appropriately by offering help and prompting Speaker A to share their initial interpretation. Speaker A's response is on-topic. Speaker B then builds on this by asking for specific examples, which Speaker A provides relevantly. The final turn from Speaker B pushes the conversation deeper by asking about the influence of these beliefs, a logical next step in an educational or analytical discussion. Each turn is a direct and logical follow-up to the previous one, maintaining a clear and consistent topic throughout.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between turns that would indicate a breakdown in the conversation. The pauses that do exist (e.g., between [[00:13]] and [[00:14]]) are very brief (1 second) and natural. The dialogue contains several brief overlaps, but these are primarily a speaker overlapping themselves with fillers like \"Uh,\" \"Ummm,\" or \"Cool\" (e.g., [[00:06],[00:07]], [[00:11],[00:12]], [[00:15],[00:16]]). The one instance of two speakers overlapping ([[00:08],[00:09]]) is minimal and typical of natural turn-taking. These minor overlaps and fillers contribute to a natural-sounding conversation rather than detracting from it. There are no extended, disruptive overlaps or awkward silences.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/7",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: It's so good to get away from the city for a while.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:04],[00:09]] B: I know what you mean. It's nice to be able to relax and take in all the beauty of nature.\n[[00:07],[00:08]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:10],[00:16]] A: Yeah, it really is. I feel like I've been able to clear my head and remember what's important\n[[00:12],[00:13]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:15],[00:20]] B: Speaking of what's important, have you thought about how this break might impact your work when you get back?\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:21],[00:29]] A: That's a good point. I think I'll be more productive after this break. But I was also thinking about the importance of maintaining a better work-life balance moving forward.\n[[00:23],[00:24]] A: Mm.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:30],[00:38]] B: Sorry to jump in, but I also wanted to mention how vital it is to make these breaks a regular part of our routine. Don't you agree?\n[[00:32],[00:33]] B: Um.\n[[00:34],[00:35]] B: Sure.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains a high level of response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B's initial response directly affirms and expands on Speaker A's opening statement about getting away from the city. The conversation then naturally progresses from the general feeling of relaxation to the more specific topic of what's important in life. Speaker B skillfully uses Speaker A's phrase \"what's important\" to pivot to the related topic of work-life balance, which Speaker A then readily discusses. Finally, Speaker B builds on this by suggesting making breaks a regular habit. Each turn is a coherent and logical continuation of the previous one, showing strong topic coherence.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency of this dialogue is excellent. The pauses between speaker turns are consistently short and natural, each lasting only one second ([[00:03]-[00:04]], [[00:09]-[00:10]], [[00:20]-[00:21]], [[00:29]-[00:30]]). This indicates a smooth, well-paced conversation. There is one brief, one-second overlap ([[00:15]-[00:16]]) where Speaker B begins speaking just as Speaker A is finishing. This type of short overlap is very common in natural conversation and often signals engagement rather than disruption. There are no prolonged pauses or disruptive overlaps that would hinder the flow of the conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/7",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:14]] A: I really need a good workout plan using just bodyweight and household items. Can you create one that works different muscles and fits all fitness levels? Also, could you make it easy to follow with clear instructions and a schedule?\n[[00:15],[00:25]] B: Absolutely! Let's start with a simple full-body routine. Do squats for legs, push-ups for chest, and sit-ups for core. Use a sturdy\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Sure.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:24],[00:36]] A: This workout plan sounds helpful, but could you add more exercises specifically for abs? I really want to focus on building my core strength - what are the best bodyweight moves for that?\n[[00:37],[01:00]] B: For core strength, try Russian twists, leg raises, and bicycle crunches. Planks are great too - hold for 30 seconds to start. You can do knee taps during planks for extra challenge. Aim for 3 sets of each exercise, with short breaks in between. Remember to keep your back flat and move slowly for best results. Would you like me to demonstrate any of these?\n[[00:44],[00:45]] B: Right.\n[[00:46],[00:47]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:48],[00:49]] B: Mm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent topic coherence and logical consistency. Speaker A begins with a clear, detailed request for a workout plan. Speaker B's initial response directly addresses this by suggesting a simple full-body routine, which is a logical starting point. Speaker A then refines their request, asking for more specific ab exercises. Speaker B's second response is highly relevant, providing a list of targeted exercises, instructions on form and sets, and even offering a demonstration. Each response logically follows the previous turn and directly answers the questions asked, making the conversation highly effective and relevant.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The pauses between turns are minimal and natural (e.g., the one-second pause between 00:14 and 00:15). There is a very brief, one-second overlap between 00:24 and 00:25 where A begins to speak just before B has finished. This type of brief overlap is common in natural conversation and is not disruptive. There are no extended, awkward pauses or disruptive overlaps where speakers talk over each other for a prolonged period. The turn-taking is smooth and efficient. The short utterances from speaker B (e.g., \"Right,\" \"Yeah, yeah\") appear to be transcription errors, as they occur while B is already holding the main speaking turn; they do not represent actual overlaps with speaker A.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/7",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: That's fascinating how they used different communication methods. Could you tell me more about how cuneiform evolved over time and how long it was used in Mesopotamia?\n[[00:11],[00:23]] B: Cuneiform started as simple pictures but became more abstract over centuries. It was used for over 3,000 years, which is\n[[00:14],[00:16]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:17],[00:17]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Uh.\n[[00:22],[00:30]] A: Wait, did you say it could write different languages? How did that work exactly, and which languages used cuneiform besides Sumerian?\n[[00:31],[00:41]] B: Yes! Cuneiform adapted to write Akkadian, Babylonian, and even Persian. Scribes modified the symbols to match new sounds. It's like\n[[00:34],[00:35]] B: Mm.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] B: Right.\n[[00:40],[00:48]] A: That's really impressive it lasted so long. What finally replaced cuneiform, and are there any modern writing systems inspired by it?\n[[00:48],[01:03]] B: The alphabet eventually replaced cuneiform around 100 BCE. While no modern script copies it directly, the idea of symbols representing sounds started there. Our writing owes a lot to those ancient scribes!\n[[00:53],[00:53]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:54],[00:55]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:56],[00:57]] B: Okay,okay.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B's responses directly and accurately answer Speaker A's questions about cuneiform. For example, when A asks about the evolution and duration of cuneiform, B provides a clear answer about it starting as pictures and being used for over 3,000 years. The conversation maintains a coherent topic, logically progressing from the nature of cuneiform to the languages it was used for, and finally to its replacement and legacy. Each turn is a logical follow-up to the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no prolonged pauses between turns; the turn-taking is smooth and natural. The overlaps present in the dialogue are short, non-disruptive backchanneling from speaker B (e.g., \"Okay, okay,\" \"Mm hmm\"). These interjections function as active listening cues and do not interrupt the flow of speaker A's turn. They contribute to a natural, engaged conversational style rather than being harmful overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/7",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: Hey, Mom. I was thinking about coming home for a visit soon.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:05],[00:11]] B: That would be wonderful! We would love to have you home. When were you thinking of\n[[00:07],[00:08]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:10],[00:14]] A: I was thinking maybe in a couple of weeks. Is that okay with you?\n[[00:12],[00:13]] A: Cool.\n[[00:15],[00:24]] B: Of course it is! We'll be so happy to see you. But do you have any specific dates in mind? It would help us plan some activities or maybe even a small family gathering.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Sure.\n[[00:19],[00:21]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:25],[00:31]] A: I don't have exact dates yet, but I'll start working on my travel plans and let you know as soon as I have everything worked out.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:32],[00:34]] B: Sounds good, honey. We can't wait to see you.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue for response relevance and interactional fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\nThe dialogue follows a very logical and coherent progression.\n1. Speaker A initiates the conversation by expressing a desire to visit home.\n2. Speaker B responds with enthusiasm and asks a relevant follow-up question about the timing.\n3. Speaker A provides a general timeframe and checks if that works for B.\n4. Speaker B confirms it's fine and asks for more specific dates to help with planning.\n5. Speaker A explains they don't have specific dates yet but will provide them later.\n6. Speaker B acknowledges this and concludes the conversation positively.\n\nEach response is directly related to the previous turn, and the conversation stays on topic throughout. There are no logical inconsistencies or abrupt topic shifts. The interaction is natural and goal-oriented.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\n- **Pauses:** The pauses between the main speaker turns are consistently one second long (e.g., between [00:04] and [00:05], [00:14] and [00:15], [00:24] and [00:25]). These short gaps are typical of natural turn-taking and do not disrupt the flow of the conversation. There are no prolonged or awkward silences.\n- **Overlaps:** There is a minor overlap between [00:10] and [00:11] as Speaker A begins to answer before Speaker B has fully finished their question. This is a very common and natural feature of conversation, indicating engaged listening, and is not disruptive. The other listed utterances (e.g., \"Uh huh,\" \"Mm hmm,\" \"Cool\") are very brief backchannels or fillers that the speakers say during their own turns. They do not overlap with the other speaker's turn and do not harm the interactional fluency.\n\nThe overall fluency is excellent, with smooth turn-taking and no harmful interruptions or delays.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/8",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:00]] A: How are you?\n[[00:01],[00:03]] B: Great! What about you?\n[[00:03],[00:09]] A: I'm doing well. I really like to play tennis, but I can never get my timing\n[[00:05],[00:07]] A: Uh.\n[[00:08],[00:14]] B: Oh, I totally get that! Timing can be tricky. Have you tried watching any tutorial videos to help with that?\n[[00:10],[00:11]] B: Um.\n[[00:12],[00:12]] B: Uh.\n[[00:15],[00:18]] A: I have, but I'm usually not swinging the racket correctly.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] A: Um.\n[[00:19],[00:30]] B: Well, usually when people try to do that they end up losing their form and then start missing easy shots. Have you ever considered focusing more on your footwork? It could help with your timing as well.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:31],[00:39]] A: Actually, I was thinking of taking a class, but I wasn't sure if it would really help with my specific problem. Do you think it would be worth the investment?\n[[00:33],[00:34]] A: Um.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] A: Mm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe conversation demonstrates excellent response relevance. The dialogue begins with a standard greeting and then transitions smoothly to the topic of playing tennis. Speaker A introduces a specific problem (bad timing), and Speaker B responds directly and relevantly by asking about tutorials. When A explains the issue is more about form, B provides a more tailored suggestion about footwork. A then logically pivots to asking about taking a class, which is a coherent next step in seeking a solution. Each turn is a logical and on-topic response to the previous one, creating a cohesive and easy-to-follow conversation.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the transitions are smooth and natural, typically with only a one-second gap, which indicates engaged listening. There are no disruptive overlaps where one speaker cuts off the other. The few instances of self-overlap (e.g., A saying \"Uh\" within their own turn, or B saying \"Um\") are natural hesitations or fillers that are common in spontaneous speech and do not hinder the flow of the conversation. The dialogue feels natural and collaborative.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/8",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:05]] A: Hey Darnell! I wanted to give you this card in person. It's so pretty, I love the picture on the front.\n[[00:03],[00:04]] A: Really.\n[[00:07],[00:15]] B: Aw, thank you so much Zackariah! That was really sweet of you. I love flowers, they always make me feel so\n[[00:09],[00:10]] B: Cool.\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: Really.\n[[00:14],[00:18]] A: Sorry to jump in, I just remembered, do you have any favorite types of flowers?\n[[00:16],[00:17]] A: Cool.\n[[00:19],[00:27]] B: Oh, I love lilies and sunflowers. They always brighten up my day. So how have you been? I feel like we haven't talked in forever.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] B: Right.\n[[00:23],[00:24]] B: Right.\n[[00:28],[00:32]] A: I know, I've been really busy with work and stuff. But I'm good, how are you?\n[[00:29],[00:30]] A: I see.\n[[00:33],[00:39]] B: Good, good. Just been keeping busy with work and life in general. You know how it is.\n[[00:36],[00:36]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:40],[00:44]] A: Yeah, definitely. So what's new with you? Anything exciting going on?\n[[00:42],[00:42]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:46],[00:55]] B: Not too much, just the usual. You know, work and hanging out with friends. But I am going on a trip next month, so that should be a nice break from everything.\n[[00:49],[00:49]] B: Sure.\n[[00:57],[00:59]] A: Wait, where are you going?\n[[01:00],[01:04]] B: Hawaii! I've always wanted to go there, so I'm really excited.\n[[01:06],[01:12]] A: That sounds amazing! I'm definitely jealous. I've always wanted to go to Hawaii too.\n[[01:12],[01:17]] B: Yeah, it's definitely on my bucket list. Hopefully I can check it off soon.\n[[01:18],[01:22]] A: Well, have a great time and make sure to take lots of pictures!\n[[01:24],[01:29]] B: Will do! Thanks again for the card, Zackariah. It really brightened my day.\n[[01:30],[01:32]] A: No problem, Darnell. Anytime!",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation begins with Speaker A giving Speaker B a card, which leads to a discussion about flowers pictured on the card. Speaker B's mention of loving flowers prompts Speaker A to ask about B's favorite types. The conversation then naturally transitions into a general catch-up about their lives, as they haven't spoken in a while. This leads to Speaker B mentioning an upcoming trip to Hawaii. The subsequent turns are logically focused on this trip. The dialogue concludes by circling back to the initial topic, with Speaker B once again thanking Speaker A for the card. Every turn is a logical and coherent response to the previous one, and topic shifts are handled smoothly and naturally.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns; the gaps are all brief (1-2 seconds), which is typical for a natural, flowing conversation. There is one instance of a brief overlap from [[00:14],[00:15]] where Speaker A begins talking just before Speaker B finishes. However, Speaker A immediately acknowledges this by saying \"Sorry to jump in,\" which makes the interruption feel polite and natural rather than disruptive. The other instances of overlapping speech listed in the transcript are self-overlaps (a speaker making a comment like \"Really\" or \"Cool\" during their own turn), which do not disrupt the turn-taking between the two main speakers. The rhythm of the conversation is smooth and lacks any awkwardness.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/10",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:12]] A: That sounds fascinating! Could you tell me more about how virtual reality is being used in these modern Chinese opera performances? I'm really curious about the technical aspects.\n[[00:12],[00:24]] B: Sure! Some productions use VR headsets to transport audiences into traditional Chinese settings. The technology enhances the storytelling with\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Um.\n[[00:23],[00:31]] A: Wait, does that mean the performers are actually singing live while the audience wears VR headsets? How does that work logistically?\n[[00:32],[00:40]] B: Great question! Yes, the singers perform live on stage just like traditional opera. The VR headsets add digital scenery\n[[00:34],[00:35]] B: I see.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] B: Um.\n[[00:39],[00:48]] A: That makes sense! Are there any famous modern artists or groups you’d recommend who are blending Chinese opera with contemporary music styles?\n[[00:49],[01:00]] B: Absolutely! Singer Gong Linna mixes opera vocals with modern pop and rock. There’s also the band \"Sheng\" that fuses traditional instruments with electronic\n[[00:52],[00:53]] B: Right.\n[[00:54],[00:55]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:55],[00:56]] B: Cool.\n[[00:59],[01:06]] A: I’d love to hear some examples—do you know where I can find recordings or videos of these modern Chinese opera fusion performances?\n[[01:07],[01:20]] B: You can check platforms like YouTube or Bilibili for live performances. Search for Gong Linna’s \"The Divine Comedy\" or Sheng’s concert videos. Many artists also share clips on social media to reach global audiences.\n[[01:11],[01:12]] B: Mm hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance. I will analyze the conversation turn by turn to see if the responses are logical, coherent, and on-topic.\n\n1. **A's first turn:** Asks about the use of VR in modern Chinese opera.\n2. **B's first turn:** Responds directly by explaining how VR headsets are used to create immersive settings. This is a relevant and on-topic response.\n3. **A's second turn:** Interrupts to ask a clarifying question about the logistics of live performance with VR. This is a logical follow-up based on B's explanation and shows A is actively listening.\n4. **B's second turn:** Answers the clarifying question directly, confirming the live performance aspect and the role of VR for scenery. The response is coherent and relevant.\n5. **A's third turn:** Acknowledges the answer (\"That makes sense!\") and then pivots to a related topic: artists who blend opera with contemporary music. This is a natural progression of the conversation about \"modern Chinese opera.\"\n6. **B's third turn:** Provides specific and relevant examples of artists (Gong Linna, Sheng), directly answering A's question.\n7. **A's fourth turn:** Asks a practical follow-up question on where to find recordings of the recommended artists. This is a logical next step.\n8. **B's fourth turn:** Gives a helpful and direct answer, suggesting specific platforms and search terms.\n\nThe entire conversation flows logically. Each turn is a direct and relevant response or a natural follow-up to the previous statement. The topic remains coherent, focusing on modern interpretations of Chinese opera.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses or extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:** I will check the time gaps between the end of one speaker's turn and the start of the next.\n * A ends at [00:12], B starts at [00:12]. No pause.\n * A ends at [00:31], B starts at [00:32]. A 1-second pause, which is natural.\n * A ends at [00:48], B starts at [00:49]. A 1-second pause, which is natural.\n * A ends at [01:06], B starts at [01:07]. A 1-second pause, which is natural.\n There are no prolonged or awkward pauses in the dialogue.\n\n2. **Overlaps:** I will check the timestamps for overlapping speech.\n * `[[00:12],[00:24]] B` and `[[00:23],[00:31]] A`: There is a 1-second overlap where A interrupts B. This interruption (\"Wait, does that mean...\") is a sign of engagement and curiosity, not a technical issue. It's brief and doesn't disrupt the flow.\n * `[[00:32],[00:40]] B` and `[[00:39],[00:48]] A`: A 1-second overlap. A begins speaking just as B is finishing. This is common in natural, fast-paced conversation.\n * `[[00:49],[01:00]] B` and `[[00:59],[01:06]] A`: A 1-second overlap. Similar to the previous one, A is eager to ask the next question.\n The scattered filler words from speaker B (e.g., \"Um,\" \"Right,\" \"Mm hmm\") are also brief and function as natural hesitations or backchannels, contributing to a realistic conversational feel.\n\nConclusion: There are no harmful extended overlaps or long pauses. The short overlaps that exist are characteristic of an engaged and fluent conversation. The interactional fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/10",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:00]] A: Hey, what's up?\n[[00:02],[00:05]] B: Not much, just checking my email. You?\n[[00:06],[00:10]] A: Just hanging out, trying to stay cool. It's pretty hot\n[[00:08],[00:08]] A: Uh.\n[[00:09],[00:14]] B: Oh, speaking of hot, did you hear about the heatwave that's supposed to hit next week?\n[[00:10],[00:11]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:15],[00:19]] A: Yeah, I know. I'm surprised the air conditioner is even working.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:20],[00:25]] B: Yeah, it's not really doing much. Anyway, what's new with you these days?\n[[00:22],[00:23]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:25],[00:30]] A: Actually, I just got an email from my sister. She's coming to visit next week.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] A: Cool.\n[[00:31],[00:35]] B: That's great! I haven't seen her in a while.\n[[00:32],[00:34]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:36],[00:39]] A: Yeah, I know. I'm really looking forward to it.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and coherence of the dialogue.\n\n1. **A: \"Hey, what's up?\"** -> **B: \"Not much, just checking my email. You?\"**: This is a standard greeting exchange. B's response is directly relevant and reciprocates the question.\n2. **B: \"...You?\"** -> **A: \"Just hanging out, trying to stay cool. It's pretty hot\"**: A answers B's question and introduces the topic of the weather (heat). This is a logical and coherent response.\n3. **A: \"...It's pretty hot\"** -> **B: \"Oh, speaking of hot, did you hear about the heatwave...?\"**: B latches onto the keyword \"hot\" to transition the conversation smoothly to a related topic (the heatwave). This is excellent topic coherence.\n4. **B: \"...heatwave...\"** -> **A: \"Yeah, I know. I'm surprised the air conditioner is even working.\"**: A acknowledges B's point and continues the topic of heat and coping with it. The response is relevant.\n5. **A: \"...air conditioner...\"** -> **B: \"Yeah, it's not really doing much. Anyway, what's new with you these days?\"**: B responds to A's comment about the AC and then naturally pivots the conversation to a new, broader topic (\"what's new\"). This is a common and logical way to change subjects in a casual chat.\n6. **B: \"...what's new...?\"** -> **A: \"Actually, I just got an email from my sister. She's coming to visit next week.\"**: A directly answers B's question with personal news. This is perfectly relevant.\n7. **A: \"...sister... coming to visit...\"** -> **B: \"That's great! I haven't seen her in a while.\"**: B provides a positive and relevant reaction, showing engagement and a shared social context.\n8. **B: \"...haven't seen her...\"** -> **A: \"Yeah, I know. I'm really looking forward to it.\"**: A responds to B's comment and expresses their own feelings, concluding the exchange coherently.\n\nAll responses are logically consistent and maintain a coherent conversational flow. Topic shifts are handled naturally.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n* **Pauses**:\n * [00:00] A to [00:02] B: A 2-second pause. This is a normal length for a turn transition.\n * [00:05] B to [00:06] A: A 1-second pause. Natural and quick.\n * [00:14] B to [00:15] A: A 1-second pause. Natural.\n * [00:19] A to [00:20] B: A 1-second pause. Natural.\n * [00:30] A to [00:31] B: A 1-second pause. Natural.\n * [00:35] B to [00:36] A: A 1-second pause. Natural.\n * There are no prolonged or awkward pauses in the dialogue. The turn-taking is smooth and timely.\n\n* **Overlaps**:\n * [[00:09],[00:10]]: B begins speaking (\"Oh, speaking of hot...\") just as A is finishing (\"...It's pretty hot\"). This is a brief, one-second overlap. It functions as an enthusiastic interjection, which is very common and natural in human conversation. It is not disruptive.\n * The other overlaps noted in the transcript ([[00:08],[00:08]], [[00:10],[00:11]], [[00:16],[00:17]], [[00:22],[00:23]], [[00:27],[00:28]], [[00:32],[00:34]]) are brief, single-word filler sounds or backchannels (\"Uh\", \"Ummm\", \"That's cool\", \"Okay,okay\", \"Cool\", \"Yeah, yeah\"). These are typical features of a fluent, interactive conversation and do not hinder communication. They are not harmful, extended overlaps.\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The conversation flows naturally without any disruptive pauses or overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/11",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:12]] A: That's really moving to hear about their journey toward healing. Could you tell me more about how the protagonist's relationship with their therapist developed over time, and what specific techniques helped them most?\n[[00:13],[00:23]] B: The therapist started with simple grounding exercises to manage panic attacks. Deep breathing and naming objects in the room helped\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Sure.\n[[00:18],[00:18]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:22],[00:34]] A: That makes sense, but I'm curious how the protagonist reacted to exposure therapy at first? Did they resist it or embrace it immediately, and how did their progress look week by week?\n[[00:35],[00:47]] B: Oh they absolutely hated it at first! The first session ended with them bolting from the office. But the therapist went slower, using dimmers instead of full darkness. By\n[[00:38],[00:39]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:40],[00:40]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] B: Really.\n[[00:46],[00:58]] A: That's such a realistic portrayal of recovery not being linear. Speaking of realism, did the author base any of these therapeutic techniques on real psychological practices, or was it all fictional?\n[[00:58],[01:11]] B: Actually the author consulted with trauma specialists! The exposure therapy and grounding techniques mirror real treatments for PTSD. Even the nightmare coping strategies\n[[01:02],[01:03]] B: Sure.\n[[01:04],[01:05]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[01:06],[01:07]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[01:10],[01:22]] A: That attention to detail really shows. One last question - did the protagonist ever reach a point where they could help others with similar struggles, or did their story remain more personal?\n[[01:22],[01:37]] B: Beautiful question! By the story's end, they started volunteering at a mental health hotline. Their lived experience made them uniquely able to say \"I've been there too\" - which became their greatest strength in helping others heal.\n[[01:27],[01:27]] B: Hmm.\n[[01:28],[01:29]] B: Sure.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A initiates the conversation by asking specific questions about a character's therapeutic journey. Speaker B provides direct and relevant answers that address all parts of Speaker A's questions. For example, when A asks about the therapist relationship and specific techniques ([[00:00],[00:12]]), B immediately responds by describing grounding exercises ([[00:13],[00:23]]). The conversation progresses logically, with each of A's follow-up questions building coherently on B's previous answers. The topic remains consistent throughout, focusing on the character's mental health recovery and the realism of the portrayal. There are no instances of topic deviation or logical inconsistency.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between turns; the transitions are consistently smooth and immediate. For instance, the transition from A's turn at [[00:58]] to B's turn at [[00:58]] is seamless. The few instances of overlap are very brief (1 second) and represent natural, engaged turn-taking rather than disruptive interruptions (e.g., [[00:22],[00:23]] and [[00:46],[00:47]]). Furthermore, Speaker B provides short, well-timed backchanneling cues like \"Sure\" and \"Uh huh\" during Speaker A's turns, which indicates active listening and enhances the natural flow of the conversation without causing disruption.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/11",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: I just can't believe it! I won the lottery!\n[[00:03],[00:06]] B: Congratulations! That's amazing news.\n[[00:07],[00:11]] A: I know! I can't believe it myself. I've never felt this lucky before.\n[[00:08],[00:10]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:12],[00:15]] B: So, what are you planning to do with your winnings?\n[[00:16],[00:23]] A: Well, first of all, I'm going to take a luxurious vacation. Somewhere warm and sunny, like the Caribbean or\n[[00:18],[00:19]] A: Really.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] A: Cool.\n[[00:22],[00:29]] B: Hawaii sounds perfect! But have you thought about any long-term plans, like investments or savings?\n[[00:24],[00:26]] B: Right.\n[[00:30],[00:43]] A: Yes, definitely. But before I get into that, I want to treat myself to a whole new wardrobe. After years of wearing hand-me-downs and secondhand clothes, I'm finally going to be able to afford designer labels!\n[[00:34],[00:34]] A: Cool.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:37],[00:39]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:43],[00:54]] B: That sounds amazing. You deserve it after all you've been through. But coming back to long-term plans, have you considered speaking to a financial advisor to make sure you manage your winnings wisely?\n[[00:47],[00:47]] B: Mm.\n[[00:48],[00:49]] B: Sure.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains a high level of response relevance and topic coherence. Speaker A introduces the topic of winning the lottery, and all subsequent turns from both speakers directly relate to this event. Speaker B's responses are logical follow-ups, asking about A's plans for the money. Speaker A's answers (vacation, new wardrobe) are appropriate. Speaker B then logically steers the conversation towards long-term financial planning, which is a relevant and sensible progression of the topic. The conversation flows naturally and logically from one point to the next without any inconsistencies.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are no prolonged pauses between turns; the gaps are consistently one second or less, which is typical for a natural conversation. There are numerous instances of overlapping speech, but they are not disruptive. Most overlaps are self-overlaps, where a speaker says a filler word (\"Ummm\", \"Cool\", \"Right\") during their own turn, which doesn't interrupt the other person. The one instance of inter-speaker overlap ([[00:22],[00:23]]) is brief and serves as a natural interjection or completion of a thought, which is common in engaged conversation. There are no extended, competitive overlaps that would harm the flow of the dialogue.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/13",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: I'm just really sad, and I miss everyone back home.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Mm.\n[[00:03],[00:05]] B: Why are you so sad?\n[[00:05],[00:12]] A: I don't know. I just am. I miss my family and friends, and I feel like I'm never going to\n[[00:07],[00:08]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:09],[00:09]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:11],[00:16]] B: Do you think staying connected with them more often, like through video calls, might help?\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Um.\n[[00:16],[00:19]] A: Maybe. I just can't help but feel this way.\n[[00:20],[00:22]] B: I understand. Do you want to talk about it?\n[[00:23],[00:29]] A: No, not really. I just need some time to process my emotions and figure out how to cope with this distance.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] A: Really.\n[[00:29],[00:35]] B: I get that. But if you ever feel like you need to talk, even if it's just a little bit, I'm here for you.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:32],[00:33]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] A: Thanks. I'll keep that in mind.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue based on Response Relevance.\n\n1. **A's opening statement ([00:00]-[00:03]):** A clearly states their emotional state (\"sad\") and the reason (\"miss everyone back home\").\n2. **B's response ([00:03]-[00:05]):** B asks a direct and relevant question (\"Why are you so sad?\") to understand A's feelings better. This is a logical follow-up.\n3. **A's explanation ([00:05]-[00:12]):** A elaborates on their sadness, confirming it's about missing family and friends. This directly answers B's question and is coherent with the initial statement.\n4. **B's suggestion ([00:11]-[00:16]):** B offers a practical and empathetic suggestion (video calls) that is directly related to the problem A described (missing people).\n5. **A's reaction ([00:16]-[00:19]):** A acknowledges the suggestion (\"Maybe\") but expresses that the feeling is overwhelming, which is a very realistic and logically consistent response.\n6. **B's offer of support ([00:20]-[00:22]):** B shows understanding and offers to be a listener, which is a relevant and supportive response to someone expressing persistent sadness.\n7. **A's clarification ([00:23]-[00:29]):** A politely declines the offer to talk, explaining their need for personal processing time. This is a clear and coherent response that maintains the topic.\n8. **B's reassurance ([00:29]-[00:35]):** B respects A's boundary (\"I get that\") while keeping the offer of support open. This is a highly relevant and emotionally intelligent response.\n9. **A's closing ([00:36]-[00:37]):** A thanks B, acknowledging the offer. This provides a natural and coherent conclusion to the exchange.\n\nThe dialogue is consistently on-topic, with each turn logically following the previous one. The conversation shows emotional depth and coherence.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue based on Interactional Fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:**\n * [00:19]-[00:20]: A 1-second pause between A's turn and B's turn.\n * [00:22]-[00:23]: A 1-second pause between B's turn and A's turn.\n * [00:35]-[00:36]: A 1-second pause between B's turn and A's turn.\n * All other turn transitions are immediate (less than 1 second). The brief 1-second pauses are completely natural in a conversation, especially one with an emotional tone. They are not long or disruptive.\n\n2. **Overlaps:**\n * The transcript shows several instances of a speaker overlapping with their own utterance (e.g., A at [00:01], B at [00:13]). These are not harmful inter-speaker overlaps but rather fillers or self-backchannels that are part of a natural speech pattern.\n * There is a slight overlap between B's turn starting at [00:11] and A's turn ending at [00:12]. This is a very brief, natural turn-taking overlap, not a disruptive interruption. B starts to speak just as A is finishing, which is common in fluid conversation.\n\nOverall, the interaction is very smooth. Turn-taking is fluid, pauses are minimal and natural, and there are no extended or disruptive overlaps between the speakers.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/13",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Excuse me, sir. I'm sorry I'm late.\n[[00:03],[00:07]] B: No worries, miss. We were just about to start discussing the itinerary for today's tour.\n[[00:04],[00:05]] B: Sure.\n[[00:06],[00:09]] A: I'm so glad I made it. Thank you.\n[[00:09],[00:11]] B: You're welcome. Where are you headed?\n[[00:12],[00:13]] A: New York City.\n[[00:13],[00:18]] B: Ah, the Big Apple. What brings you to the city? Business or pleasure?\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Right.\n[[00:19],[00:22]] A: I'm going to visit my sister. She's in college there.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] A: Really.\n[[00:22],[00:26]] B: That's great. I'm sure she'll be happy to see you.\n[[00:23],[00:24]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:26],[00:29]] A: I hope so. I haven't seen her in a while.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:30],[00:34]] B: Well, you're on your way now. Enjoy your trip.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance.\n\n1. **A: \"Excuse me, sir. I'm sorry I'm late.\"** -> This is a clear and polite apology.\n2. **B: \"No worries, miss. We were just about to start...\"** -> This is a relevant and reassuring response, accepting the apology and providing context.\n3. **A: \"I'm so glad I made it. Thank you.\"** -> This logically follows B's reassurance, expressing relief.\n4. **B: \"You're welcome. Where are you headed?\"** -> B acknowledges the thanks and smoothly transitions the conversation with a relevant question.\n5. **A: \"New York City.\"** -> A direct and coherent answer.\n6. **B: \"Ah, the Big Apple. What brings you to the city?...\"** -> B acknowledges the answer and asks a logical follow-up question.\n7. **A: \"I'm going to visit my sister...\"** -> A provides a clear and relevant reason for their travel.\n8. **B: \"That's great. I'm sure she'll be happy to see you.\"** -> A supportive and relevant comment based on A's response.\n9. **A: \"I hope so. I haven't seen her in a while.\"** -> A natural and coherent elaboration on their feelings.\n10. **B: \"Well, you're on your way now. Enjoy your trip.\"** -> A logical and polite conclusion to the conversation.\n\nThe dialogue is consistently logical and coherent. Each speaker's turn is a direct and appropriate response to the previous one, maintaining a clear topic throughout the interaction.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n* **Pauses:** I will check the time gaps between turns.\n * [00:02] -> [00:03]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n * [00:05] -> [00:06]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n * [00:09] -> [00:09]: No pause. Smooth.\n * [00:11] -> [00:12]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n * [00:13] -> [00:13]: No pause. Smooth.\n * [00:18] -> [00:19]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n * [00:22] -> [00:22]: No pause. Smooth.\n * [00:26] -> [00:26]: No pause. Smooth.\n * [00:29] -> [00:30]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n There are no prolonged or awkward pauses. The turn-taking is swift and natural.\n\n* **Overlaps:** I will check for overlapping timestamps between speakers A and B.\n * [[00:03],[00:07]] B and [[00:06],[00:09]] A overlap for 1 second ([00:06]-[00:07]). This is a very brief overlap where A begins speaking just as B is finishing. This is common in natural conversation and not disruptive.\n * The other overlaps noted in the transcript (e.g., [[00:04],[00:05]] B: \"Sure.\") are backchannels from the current speaker during their own turn. They do not interrupt the other speaker and are not considered harmful interactional overlaps.\n\nThe interaction is very fluid. There are no harmful pauses or extended overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/13",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: That's really touching how Sarah helped Samantha heal. Could you tell me more about specific moments during their reunion that stood out as particularly meaningful for Samantha's recovery?\n[[00:12],[00:23]] B: One powerful moment was when Sarah showed Samantha their old photo album. Seeing pictures of their high school graduation brought back happy tears. Another special time was when\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Right.\n[[00:22],[00:32]] A: I'm curious, did Samantha ever share with Sarah how scared she felt about losing more memories, or was she mostly focused on the positive emotions during their reunion?\n[[00:33],[00:42]] B: Actually, Samantha did open up about her fears later that night. She told Sarah how terrifying it was waking up without memories. But\n[[00:35],[00:38]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:39],[00:39]] B: Right.\n[[00:41],[00:52]] A: That's so beautiful. Do you think Samantha would have recovered as well without Sarah's support, or was her best friend truly essential to the healing process?\n[[00:52],[01:05]] B: While Samantha was strong on her own, Sarah's role was absolutely vital. Having someone who knew her before the accident provided comfort no therapist could match. Sarah\n[[00:56],[00:56]] B: Really.\n[[00:57],[00:58]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:59],[01:00]] B: Mm.\n[[01:04],[01:12]] A: Speaking of therapists, did Samantha's doctors think reconnecting with old friends like Sarah was an important part of her treatment plan for memory recovery?\n[[01:13],[01:29]] B: Yes, her doctors strongly encouraged reconnecting with loved ones. They said familiar faces could trigger lost memories better than anything else. But they warned Samantha not to force it, letting the memories come naturally through shared experiences, just like with Sarah.\n[[01:18],[01:19]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[01:19],[01:20]] B: I see.\n[[01:21],[01:21]] B: Mhm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains a clear and consistent topic centered on Samantha's memory recovery and the role her friend Sarah played in it. Speaker A's questions logically progress from asking about specific moments ([00:00]), to exploring emotional depth ([00:22]), to questioning the necessity of the friend's support ([00:41]), and finally to seeking a professional medical perspective ([01:04]). Speaker B's responses are always directly relevant, providing coherent and on-topic answers to each of A's questions. The conversation flows logically and without any deviation from the central theme.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Pauses between turns are consistently short (1 second or less), indicating a natural and engaged conversational rhythm. While there are a few minor overlaps where Speaker A begins their question just as Speaker B is finishing their last word (e.g., at [00:22], [00:41], and [01:04]), these are very brief (1 second) and typical of natural, fast-paced dialogue. They do not disrupt the flow or cause any loss of information. There are no extended overlaps or long, awkward silences that would harm the interaction. The filler words from Speaker B (e.g., \"Right\", \"Ummm\", \"Mhm\") are also natural and do not impede fluency.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/13",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:05]] A: Please help me find a guesthouse or hotel that has free parking. I prefer a guesthouse though.\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:06],[00:09]] B: There are many. Is there a particular area you\n[[00:07],[00:08]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:09],[00:12]] A: Not really, but I'd like it to be moderately priced.\n[[00:10],[00:11]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:12],[00:20]] B: They are many here. We can narrow them down by stating how many stars you would prefer, or if you have any specific amenities in mind.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:21],[00:28]] A: That could be anywhere. Just book for me for 3 people and 4 nights starting from Sunday.\n[[00:23],[00:24]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] A: Cool.\n[[00:29],[00:32]] B: The Acorn Guest House is a good option for you.\n[[00:30],[00:31]] B: Really.\n[[00:34],[00:40]] A: Okay, sounds good. Can you make a booking for 3 people and 4 nights starting from Sunday?\n[[00:36],[00:37]] A: Mm.\n[[00:41],[00:48]] B: Great! I booked that room for you. Here is your reference number: RKBQJ4LX.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:45],[00:46]] B: Right.\n[[00:50],[00:57]] A: I've got another request I need assistance with, please. I am looking to get to Stansted Airport via train and need help booking it.\n[[00:59],[01:01]] B: Sure, do you know what day you're traveling?\n[[01:01],[01:03]] A: I will travel on Thursday.\n[[01:05],[01:07]] B: Where will you be departing from?",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Both speakers stay on topic throughout the two distinct tasks (booking a guesthouse and booking a train). Speaker B's responses are always logically connected to Speaker A's requests and statements. For example, when A asks for a guesthouse, B immediately asks for clarifying information (area). When A provides new constraints (price), B adapts and offers more ways to narrow the search (stars, amenities). When A decides to just provide booking details, B uses that information to find a suitable option and proceeds with the booking. The transition to the second task is handled clearly by A, and B's subsequent questions are perfectly relevant to booking a train. The entire conversation is coherent and logically consistent.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no prolonged pauses between turns that would disrupt the flow of the conversation; all pauses are brief and natural (1-2 seconds). The transcript lists several \"overlaps,\" but these are all instances of a speaker using filler words (\"Ummm,\" \"Mhm\") within their own turn of speech. These are not harmful overlaps where two speakers are talking over each other, but rather a characteristic of natural, spontaneous speech. The turn-taking is smooth and efficient, leading to a natural-sounding dialogue.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/14",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: Could you explain more about how these community meetings help residents and police work together to fight crime in Moline? I'm really curious about the specific ways both sides benefit from this partnership.\n[[00:12],[00:19]] B: These meetings create a direct line for residents to voice concerns to officers and city leaders. At the\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: I see.\n[[00:18],[00:28]] A: Wait, before you go on, could you tell me more about what kind of crime prevention strategies the police usually discuss at these meetings? I want to understand what practical tips they might share.\n[[00:29],[00:39]] B: Absolutely! They often cover neighborhood watch programs, home security tips, and how to report suspicious activity. They also explain\n[[00:32],[00:32]] B: Um.\n[[00:33],[00:35]] B: Really.\n[[00:38],[00:49]] A: That sounds helpful! Now, who from the Moline Police Department usually attends these meetings? I'd like to know which officers I might meet and what their roles are in keeping our city safe.\n[[00:49],[01:00]] B: You'll typically see Interim Police Chief John Hitchcock and Detective Jon Leach there. The chief manages all police operations, while Detective Leach works\n[[00:56],[00:56]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:59],[01:09]] A: That's great to know! Could you tell me more about how Detective Leach's work with Crime Stoppers helps our community? I'm interested in how residents can support those efforts.\n[[01:10],[01:28]] B: Sure thing! Detective Leach helps coordinate anonymous tips from residents through Crime Stoppers. This program has solved many cases because people feel safe reporting information without giving their names. You can help by staying alert and calling in anything suspicious.\n[[01:15],[01:16]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[01:17],[01:18]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[01:19],[01:19]] B: Mm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each turn logically follows the previous one. Speaker B consistently provides direct and relevant answers to speaker A's questions. For example, when A asks for specific crime prevention strategies ([00:18]), B lists concrete examples like neighborhood watch and home security tips ([00:29]). When A asks who attends the meetings ([00:38]), B names specific officers and their roles ([00:49]). The conversation maintains a clear focus on the topic of community police meetings in Moline, with each question from A serving to deepen the understanding of the topic. The dialogue is coherent and logically structured from start to finish.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The pauses between turns are brief and natural, typically lasting only a second (e.g., [00:11]-[00:12]), which contributes to a smooth conversational flow. There are a few instances of minor overlap where speaker A begins asking a follow-up question just before speaker B has completely finished their sentence (e.g., [00:38], [00:59]). These overlaps are not disruptive; rather, they indicate A's active engagement and eagerness to continue the conversation. Speaker B's self-overlapping backchannels (e.g., \"That's cool,\" \"I see,\" \"Okay,okay\") act as fillers and do not interfere with the interaction between the two speakers. There are no prolonged, awkward pauses or extended, competitive overlaps that would harm the dialogue's naturalness.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/14",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: I've been really interested in the aggression of dog breeds. Do you have any suggestions?\n[[00:01],[00:03]] A: Sure.\n[[00:05],[00:07]] B: What are you looking\n[[00:06],[00:13]] A: Sorry to cut in, I'm just curious—do you think certain breeds are more prone to aggression, or is it more about how they're raised?\n[[00:08],[00:10]] A: Cool.\n[[00:13],[00:27]] B: It's definitely a combination of both. Some breeds have a natural tendency towards aggression, but how they're raised plays a huge role too. Have you thought about what kind of dog you might want to adopt, or are you still exploring your options?\n[[00:17],[00:19]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:20],[00:20]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] B: Really.\n[[00:28],[00:40]] A: I was considering a Great Dane, actually. I know they're large, but I heard they have laid-back personalities. Do you think they'd be a good fit for someone who's never owned a dog before?\n[[00:34],[00:35]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:40],[00:51]] B: Great Danes are generally very gentle and affectionate, but their size can be a challenge for first-time dog owners. If you're prepared for that, they can be wonderful companions.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:45],[00:46]] B: Uh huh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user's responses are consistently relevant and contribute to a coherent conversation. A starts with a general topic (dog breed aggression) and then refines it with a more specific question (nature vs. nurture). B answers this and then asks a relevant follow-up question about A's personal interests. A responds by mentioning a specific breed (Great Dane) and asking for an opinion, which B then provides. The dialogue follows a logical progression from a general topic to a more specific, personal discussion. Each turn is a direct and logical response to the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good, with a natural conversational pace and no prolonged pauses between turns. There is a significant overlap at the beginning [[00:06]-[00:13]] where A interrupts B. However, A explicitly acknowledges this (\"Sorry to cut in\") to clarify their initial question. This is a common feature of natural, dynamic conversation and doesn't derail the interaction; B adapts smoothly, and the conversation continues. Other overlaps are brief, natural backchannels (\"Mhm\", \"Uh huh\") that indicate active listening. The flow of the conversation is not negatively impacted by these minor overlaps or the polite interruption.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/14",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: That's fascinating! Since falcons have such amazing hunting abilities, could you tell me more about how they train their young to hunt? I'm curious about how these skills develop from birth.\n[[00:13],[00:27]] B: Falcon parents teach their young through demonstration and practice. First, they bring dead prey to the nest so chicks learn what food looks like. Then they drop live prey near the\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Uh.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Cool.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] B: Uh.\n[[00:26],[00:35]] A: That sounds like a very gradual learning process. How long does it typically take for a young falcon to become fully independent and skilled at hunting on its own?\n[[00:36],[00:54]] B: It usually takes about two to three months after hatching. Young falcons stay with their parents during this training period. They start by making short flights, then progress to chasing prey. By the end of summer, most young falcons can hunt successfully on their own.\n[[00:42],[00:42]] B: Um.\n[[00:44],[00:45]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:46],[00:46]] B: Um.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and coherence of the dialogue.\n\n1. **A's first turn:** Asks a specific question about how falcons train their young to hunt.\n2. **B's first turn:** Directly answers the question by describing the process of parents bringing dead and then live prey. The response is perfectly relevant.\n3. **A's second turn:** Asks a logical follow-up question based on B's response, inquiring about the timeline for a young falcon to become independent. This shows good topic coherence.\n4. **B's second turn:** Provides a direct and detailed answer to A's question, giving a specific timeframe (two to three months) and adding context about the training period.\n\nThe conversation is logically structured and stays on topic. Each response is directly relevant to the preceding question, creating a coherent and informative exchange.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the conversational flow, focusing on pauses and overlaps.\n\n1. **Pause between A and B ([00:11] to [00:13]):** There is a 2-second pause. This is a natural length for turn-taking and does not disrupt the flow.\n2. **Overlap between B and A ([00:26] to [00:27]):** There is a 1-second overlap where A begins speaking just before B finishes. This is a very brief and common type of overlap in natural conversation and is not disruptive.\n3. **Pause between A and B ([00:35] to [00:36]):** There is a 1-second pause, which is very short and indicates a smooth, natural transition between speakers.\n4. **Fillers:** B uses several brief, natural fillers like \"Uh,\" \"Um,\" and \"Yeah, yeah\" within their own turns. These are typical of human speech and do not harm fluency.\n\nThere are no prolonged, awkward pauses or extended, disruptive overlaps. The interaction flows smoothly and naturally.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/16",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Hello! How are you today?\n[[00:03],[00:06]] B: I'm doing well, thank you. Yourself?\n[[00:07],[00:10]] A: I'm good, just taking things one step at a time.\n[[00:08],[00:09]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:12],[00:15]] B: That's the best way to do it. So what's new with you?\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:16],[00:22]] A: Well, I'm just focusing on making progress. I know that if I don't keep moving, I'll never\n[[00:19],[00:19]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:21],[00:27]] B: Sorry to jump in, but I'm curious, what specific steps are you taking to ensure you're making progress?\n[[00:23],[00:24]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:29],[00:36]] A: Mainly setting small, achievable goals and tracking my progress. I was about to say that I'll never get anywhere if I don't keep moving.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:33],[00:34]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:38],[00:42]] B: That's a great attitude to have! So what are your plans for the future?\n[[00:40],[00:41]] B: Really.\n[[00:43],[00:55]] A: I'm just going to keep moving forward and see where life takes me. I know that as long as I keep progressing, eventually good things like career advancements and personal milestones will come my way.\n[[00:50],[00:52]] A: I see.\n[[00:57],[01:03]] B: Just to clarify, when you say \"good things,\" do you have any particular milestones or achievements in mind?\n[[00:58],[00:59]] B: Uh huh.\n[[01:00],[01:01]] B: Really.\n[[01:04],[01:13]] A: Yes, I have a few milestones, like advancing in my career and personal growth. I believe that as long as I keep progressing, eventually good things will happen.\n[[01:14],[01:18]] B: That sounds like a great plan! I wish you the best of luck.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance. The conversation begins with standard greetings and naturally progresses to a discussion about personal progress and future goals. Speaker A introduces the topic of \"making progress,\" and Speaker B follows up with relevant questions, first asking for specifics (\"what specific steps are you taking\") and later for clarification (\"when you say 'good things,' do you have any particular milestones...\"). Speaker A's responses are consistently on-topic, answering the questions directly while also elaborating on their philosophy. The entire interaction is logically coherent and stays on a consistent thematic track.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are several short pauses (1-2 seconds) between turns, such as at `[[00:01],[00:03]]` and `[[00:10],[00:12]]`. These are within the normal range for a natural conversation and do not disrupt the flow. There is one notable overlap where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A at `[[00:21]]`. However, B explicitly acknowledges this interruption by saying, \"Sorry to jump in,\" which is a natural conversational repair strategy, making the overlap feel realistic rather than harmful. The other listed overlaps (e.g., `[[00:08],[00:09]]`, `[[00:13],[00:14]]`) are self-overlaps of backchanneling phrases (\"Yeah, yeah\", \"Hmm\") by the same speaker. While unusual in transcription, they represent common conversational affirmations and do not indicate a problem in the turn-taking between the two different speakers. Overall, the flow is smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/16",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: Wow, you're looking really fit! What have you been doing?\n[[00:01],[00:01]] A: Really.\n[[00:03],[00:09]] B: I've been working out a lot lately. I go to the gym three times a week and I've been watching what I\n[[00:05],[00:06]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:08],[00:16]] A: Oh, speaking of diet, do you have any specific meal plan you're following? I'm curious because I always struggle with balancing my meals.\n[[00:11],[00:12]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:13],[00:13]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:17],[00:30]] B: I focus on a balanced diet with plenty of protein and vegetables. But I was also going to mention that exercise has really helped me feel so much better overall especially in terms of mental clarity and stress relief.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:22],[00:24]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:24],[00:25]] B: Really.\n[[00:30],[00:37]] A: That's exactly what I need—a routine that improves my energy levels. Do you think starting with just light workouts will help?\n[[00:33],[00:34]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:35],[00:35]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:38],[00:47]] B: Definitely! Even light workouts can make a big difference. And once you get into the habit, you can gradually increase the intensity.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] B: I see.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one. Speaker B directly answers A's initial question about their fitness routine. Speaker A then picks up on a specific detail (diet) from B's response to ask a follow-up question. Speaker B answers the diet question and then smoothly transitions back to the broader topic of exercise benefits, which is still highly relevant. Speaker A's subsequent question about light workouts shows they are actively listening and engaged with B's points about energy levels. The conversation maintains a coherent and consistent topic throughout.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth and natural. There are no prolonged or disruptive pauses between turns; the gaps are consistently one second or less, which facilitates a natural conversational rhythm. There is a brief, one-second overlap between B's turn ending at [00:09] and A's turn beginning at [00:08]. This type of short overlap is common in natural, engaged conversation and does not hinder communication. Other overlaps are self-overlaps (e.g., a speaker adding a filler word), which are normal speech patterns and do not reflect a fluency issue between the participants.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/17",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: How did you do that trick where you made the rabbit disappear?\n[[00:04],[00:09]] B: That's a closely guarded secret. I'm afraid I can't reveal my\n[[00:06],[00:07]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:08],[00:14]] A: I get that, but I'm really curious—was it all about timing, or was there something else involved?\n[[00:11],[00:12]] A: Uh.\n[[00:14],[00:27]] B: It takes a lot of practice and understanding of how people perceive things. For example, with that particular trick, I relied on misdirection—drawing your attention to one thing while I did something else.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] B: Really.\n[[00:28],[00:31]] A: I see. So it's all about deception then.\n[[00:32],[00:39]] B: To some extent, yes. But it's also about creating an illusion that is believable enough to suspend disbelief.\n[[00:34],[00:35]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:41],[00:45]] A: That makes sense. I'm still baffled by how you made the rabbit disappear though.\n[[00:42],[00:43]] A: Right.\n[[00:46],[00:57]] B: Like I said, it's a closely guarded secret. But I can tell you this—there's no such thing as real magic. It's all just tricks and sleight of hand, combined with a bit of psychological manipulation.\n[[00:50],[00:51]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:57],[01:03]] A: Sorry to cut you off, but do you ever worry that someone might figure out how you do it?\n[[01:00],[01:01]] A: Sure.\n[[01:04],[01:12]] B: Not really. Even if someone figures out one trick, there are countless others. Plus, the real magic is in the performance, not just the method.\n[[01:06],[01:07]] B: Uh.\n[[01:08],[01:08]] B: Mhm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for Response Relevance.\n\n1. **A's initial question [[00:00],[00:02]]**: \"How did you do that trick where you made the rabbit disappear?\" - A clear, on-topic question.\n2. **B's response [[00:04],[00:09]]**: \"That's a closely guarded secret. I'm afraid I can't reveal my...\" - A perfectly relevant and logical answer for a magician, setting the stage for the conversation.\n3. **A's follow-up [[00:08],[00:14]]**: \"I get that, but I'm really curious—was it all about timing, or was there something else involved?\" - A acknowledges B's point and pivots to a more general, principle-based question. This is a coherent and logical continuation.\n4. **B's explanation [[00:14],[00:27]]**: B explains the concept of misdirection. This directly addresses A's refined question without giving away the specific secret, maintaining consistency.\n5. **A's inference [[00:28],[00:31]]**: \"So it's all about deception then.\" - A correctly synthesizes B's explanation, showing they are following the conversation.\n6. **B's clarification [[00:32],[00:39]]**: B agrees but adds nuance about creating an illusion and suspending disbelief. This is a relevant expansion of the topic.\n7. **A's circle-back [[00:41],[00:45]]**: A acknowledges the point but restates their initial curiosity, which is a natural conversational move.\n8. **B's final explanation [[00:46],[00:57]]**: B reiterates the \"secret\" but gives a broader philosophical answer about magic, which is a satisfying way to respond without breaking character.\n9. **A's topic shift [[00:57],[01:03]]**: A introduces a new but related question about the fear of being figured out. The shift is smooth and logical within the context of the conversation.\n10. **B's answer [[01:04],[01:12]]**: B provides a direct and reasoned answer to A's new question.\n\nOverall, the dialogue is thematically consistent and logically progressive. Each turn is a relevant response to the one preceding it.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for Interactional Fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pauses between turns:**\n* [[00:02] to [00:04]]: 2-second pause. A normal gap for turn-taking.\n* [[00:09] to [00:08]]: This indicates an overlap, not a pause. A starts speaking before B finishes.\n* [[00:27] to [00:28]]: 1-second pause. Natural flow.\n* [[00:31] to [00:32]]: 1-second pause. Natural flow.\n* [[00:39] to [00:41]]: 2-second pause. Normal gap.\n* [[00:45] to [00:46]]: 1-second pause. Natural flow.\n* [[00:57] to [00:57]]: An immediate turn-take (interruption). No pause.\n* [[01:03] to [01:04]]: 1-second pause. Natural flow.\nThere are no prolonged or awkward pauses in the dialogue. The turn-taking pace is smooth and indicative of an engaged conversation.\n\n**Overlaps:**\n* **[[00:08],[00:09]]**: Speaker A starts talking one second before Speaker B finishes. This is a minor, brief overlap, common in natural conversation and not disruptive.\n* **[[00:57],[00:57]]**: Speaker A starts talking at the exact moment Speaker B finishes their turn, explicitly framing it as an interruption (\"Sorry to cut you off...\"). This is a polite, managed interruption that doesn't harm fluency; in fact, it mimics real-life interaction well.\n* **Other \"overlaps\"**: The timestamps like [[00:06],[00:07]] \"Ummm\" or [[00:20],[00:21]] \"Really\" are self-interruptions or fillers within a single speaker's turn. They are not interactional overlaps and contribute to a natural speech pattern.\n\nConclusion: There are no harmful extended overlaps. The few instances of overlap are brief and managed in a way that is typical of fluent, natural conversation. The interactional flow is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/17",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:15]] A: That story was amazing! Could you add more suspense to make it even more thrilling? What if Kelly faces a critical moment where she must make a split-second decision that could change history forever? That would really keep me on the edge of my seat!\n[[00:15],[00:26]] B: Absolutely! Let me add a heart-pounding moment where Kelly's actions could rewrite history. Picture this - while in the past,\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Right.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:25],[00:44]] A: That sounds incredibly intense! Could you describe the exact moment when Kelly realizes the gravity of her decision? What thoughts race through her mind as she stands there, knowing she could save this person but might destroy the future? I want to feel her internal struggle!\n[[00:45],[01:12]] B: Imagine Kelly's breath catching as she recognizes the historical figure walking toward danger. Her hands tremble as she calculates the seconds before disaster strikes. Part of her screams to intervene, remembering how she couldn't save a loved one in her own time. But cold logic warns that saving this person might erase entire generations. The weight of history presses down as she makes her agonizing choice to let events unfold.\n[[00:53],[00:54]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:55],[00:56]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:57],[00:58]] B: Mm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance.\n\n1. **A's first turn ([00:00]-[00:15]):** A asks B to add a specific element of suspense (a split-second, history-altering decision for the character Kelly) to a story. This sets a clear topic and request.\n2. **B's first turn ([00:15]-[00:26]):** B directly accepts the request (\"Absolutely! Let me add a heart-pounding moment...\") and begins to set up the exact scenario A asked for. The response is perfectly relevant and coherent.\n3. **A's second turn ([00:25]-[00:44]):** A reacts positively to B's idea (\"That sounds incredibly intense!\") and asks for a deeper dive into the character's internal experience during that moment. This is a logical and on-topic follow-up, building on the previous turn.\n4. **B's second turn ([00:45]-[01:12]):** B delivers exactly what A requested, describing Kelly's physical and emotional reaction, the thoughts racing through her mind, and the weight of her decision. The response is highly relevant, detailed, and directly addresses the user's prompt.\n\nThe dialogue maintains perfect topic coherence, with each turn logically building upon the last. The responses are consistently relevant and directly address the requests made.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:**\n * Between A's first turn (ends at [00:15]) and B's first turn (starts at [00:15]), there is no pause. The transition is immediate and smooth.\n * Between A's second turn (ends at [00:44]) and B's second turn (starts at [00:45]), there is a one-second pause. This is a natural and acceptable duration for turn-taking.\n * There are no long or awkward pauses in the conversation.\n\n2. **Overlaps:**\n * Between B's first turn (ends at [00:26]) and A's second turn (starts at [00:25]), there is a very brief, one-second overlap. This is a common feature of natural conversation where a speaker begins just as the previous one is finishing. It is not disruptive.\n * The short utterances from B during their own speaking turns (e.g., \"Right.\", \"Okay, okay.\", \"Mm hmm.\") are self-interruptions or fillers rather than overlaps with speaker A. While slightly unusual, they are very brief and do not disrupt the overall flow or make the conversation hard to follow.\n\nThe interaction flows smoothly with natural turn-taking. There are no harmful extended overlaps or long pauses.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/18",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: How is your remodeling project going?\n[[00:02],[00:07]] B: Oh, it's going great! I just started, but I just did a quick fix so it looks\n[[00:05],[00:06]] B: Sure.\n[[00:06],[00:14]] A: Sorry to jump in, but what kind of quick fix are we talking about? I'm curious because I'm considering some minor changes in my kitchen too.\n[[00:09],[00:10]] A: Mm.\n[[00:16],[00:23]] B: Oh, I just patched up some cracks and repainted the walls. It wasn't anything major, but it made a big difference.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Really.\n[[00:20],[00:20]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:24],[00:33]] A: That's great! I've always been interested in remodeling my kitchen. I think I'd like to get rid of the white tile and make it more rustic.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] A: Mm.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] A: Cool.\n[[00:34],[00:39]] B: Yeah, it could be really cozy and give your kitchen a warm, inviting feel.\n[[00:36],[00:36]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:40],[00:45]] A: Do you have any good ideas? I'm trying to figure out how to balance rustic with a modern touch.\n[[00:43],[00:43]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:47],[00:51]] B: It sounds like you really know what you want. I'll have to think about it.\n[[00:48],[00:50]] B: Yeah, yeah.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance.\n\n1. A starts by asking B about a remodeling project.\n2. B responds directly, stating it's going well and they've done a \"quick fix\".\n3. A interrupts to ask for more details about the \"quick fix\", linking it to their own interest in kitchen changes. This is a highly relevant and natural follow-up.\n4. B explains the fix (patching and painting). This directly answers A's question.\n5. A responds positively and then transitions the topic to their own kitchen remodeling ideas (rustic style). This is a smooth and logical topic development, staying within the overall theme of remodeling.\n6. B engages with A's idea, offering positive feedback. This is a relevant and supportive response.\n7. A then asks B for specific ideas, which is a logical next step.\n8. B gives a polite, albeit non-committal, response. This is still a relevant and socially appropriate way to answer.\n\nThe conversation flows logically from one person's project to the other's, with each turn directly addressing or building upon the previous one. The topic is coherent throughout.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pauses:**\n- [[00:01] to [00:02]]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n- [[00:14] to [00:16]]: 2-second pause. Acceptable and natural between turns.\n- [[00:23] to [00:24]]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n- [[00:33] to [00:34]]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n- [[00:39] to [00:40]]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n- [[00:45] to [00:47]]: 2-second pause. Acceptable.\nThere are no prolonged or awkward pauses that disrupt the conversational flow.\n\n**Overlaps:**\n- [[00:06],[00:07]]: Speaker A begins speaking while speaker B is finishing their sentence. This is a very brief (1-second) overlap. Speaker A immediately mitigates the interruption by saying, \"Sorry to jump in,\" which makes the interaction feel natural and polite rather than disruptive.\n- Other listed overlaps (e.g., [[00:05],[00:06]] B: \"Sure.\", [[00:18],[00:19]] B: \"Really.\") are self-interruptions or fillers within a speaker's own turn, not problematic cross-talk.\n\nThe turn-taking is smooth. The single instance of one speaker cutting off the other is brief and handled politely, which is typical of natural, engaged conversation. There are no harmful overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/18",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:13]] A: Could you explain how the external boiler in the Wolf CSO24 oven works and what makes steam cooking better than other methods? I'm especially interested in how it preserves nutrients and texture while cooking food.\n[[00:13],[00:28]] B: The external boiler heats water separately from the oven cavity, creating steam quickly and efficiently. You can even refill it while cooking. Steam cooking keeps more nutrients\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Mm.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] B: Right.\n[[00:23],[00:23]] B: Sure.\n[[00:27],[00:37]] A: What are all the different cooking modes available on the Wolf CSO24 oven? I'd like to know which ones would be most useful for everyday cooking and for special occasions.\n[[00:38],[00:58]] B: The oven has twelve modes including Steam, Convection, and special combinations like Convection Steam. For daily use, Steam and Reheat are great for healthy meals. For special dishes, try Auto Steam Bake or Slow Roast. The Gourmet mode helps with professional-style cooking too.\n[[00:44],[00:45]] B: Right.\n[[00:46],[00:47]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:48],[00:49]] B: That's cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for Response Relevance.\n\n1. **A's first question to B's first response:** Speaker A asks a detailed question about the Wolf CSO24 oven's external boiler, the benefits of steam cooking, and its effect on nutrients and texture. Speaker B provides a direct and relevant answer. It explains that the boiler heats water separately for efficiency and allows refilling during use. It also confirms that steam cooking preserves more nutrients. The response is topically coherent and logically consistent with the question.\n2. **A's second question to B's second response:** Speaker A asks about the different cooking modes, specifically for everyday vs. special occasion use. Speaker B's response is excellent. It names several of the twelve available modes and then directly addresses both parts of the user's request by suggesting \"Steam and Reheat\" for daily use and \"Auto Steam Bake or Slow Roast\" for special dishes.\n\nBoth of B's responses are highly relevant, directly address all parts of A's questions, and maintain topic coherence.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for Interactional Fluency, focusing on pauses and overlaps.\n\n1. **Turn-taking and Pauses:**\n * The transition from A's first turn ([00:13]) to B's response ([00:13]) is immediate, with no pause. This indicates a very smooth and responsive interaction.\n * There is a one-second pause between A's second turn ending ([00:37]) and B's response beginning ([00:38]). This is a natural, brief pause and does not disrupt the conversational flow.\n\n2. **Overlaps:**\n * There is a very minor, one-second overlap where A begins speaking at [00:27] while B is just finishing their turn at [00:28]. This kind of brief overlap is common in natural conversation and is not disruptive.\n\nThere are no extended overlaps or long, awkward pauses between speaker turns. The turn-taking is smooth and fluid, indicating excellent interactional fluency. The short, isolated interjections from speaker B (e.g., \"Mm.\", \"Right.\") are transcribed within its own speaking turns, not as overlaps with speaker A, and while slightly unusual, they do not disrupt the primary flow of turn-taking between the two speakers.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/19",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:05]] A: Hey, Beth. I'm so glad you came to visit me on my vacation. It's been great to see you.\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:05],[00:09]] B: I know, it's been way too long! How have you been?\n[[00:07],[00:07]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:09],[00:15]] A: I've been good, just working a lot lately. I needed a break, so I decided to come here for a\n[[00:11],[00:13]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:14],[00:19]] B: Oh, that reminds me, did you manage to finish that big project before you left?\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:19],[00:28]] A: Yes, I did! It was a rush, but I got it done. Now I can finally relax. So, I decided to come here for a week.\n[[00:22],[00:23]] A: Really.\n[[00:24],[00:25]] A: Sure.\n[[00:28],[00:35]] B: Yeah, I can imagine. You've been working really hard lately. But it sounds like you're enjoying your vacation so far.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:35],[00:48]] A: Yeah, I am. It's really nice to relax and not have to worry about anything for a while. Plus, the beach is beautiful and the weather is just perfect for lounging and exploring.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] A: Right.\n[[00:40],[00:42]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:43],[00:43]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:48],[00:52]] B: Speaking of the beach, have you tried any of the water sports here? I've heard they're amazing!\n[[00:53],[01:01]] A: Not yet, but I'm planning to. The weather is perfect for it. That does sound nice. Maybe we can go for a swim later?\n[[01:02],[01:06]] B: That would be great! Thanks for coming to visit me, Beth. It means a lot.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and topic coherence. Speaker A establishes the context: B (Beth) is visiting A on vacation. The conversation flows logically from this point. The speakers discuss A's work, which led to the need for a vacation, and then transition to vacation activities like enjoying the beach and planning to do water sports. Each turn is a direct and logical response to the previous one. For example, B's question about the \"big project\" ([00:14]) is a relevant follow-up to A mentioning they have been \"working a lot\" ([00:09]). Similarly, B brings up \"water sports\" ([00:48]) as a direct response to A talking about the \"beach\" ([00:35]). The conversation is thematically consistent. There is a single logical error in the final utterance, where B (Beth) says \"Thanks for coming to visit me, Beth\", which contradicts the established context. However, given that the preceding 60 seconds of dialogue are perfectly coherent, this appears to be a minor slip-up at the very end rather than a significant failure of relevance that disrupts the interaction.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking between speakers is smooth and natural, with no prolonged or awkward pauses. There is a one-second pause between A's turn ending at [01:01] and B's beginning at [01:02], which is a normal conversational gap. There is one instance of a very brief, one-second overlap where B begins speaking at [00:14] just before A finishes at [00:15]. This overlap is not disruptive and functions as a natural interjection. The other listed timestamps within a single speaker's turn (e.g., [[00:02],[00:03]] A: Hmm) are filler words or backchannels, which are characteristic of natural speech and do not negatively impact the fluency of the interaction between the two speakers.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/19",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: Hey, Emma. I wanted to talk to you about something important.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Right.\n[[00:03],[00:06]] B: What is it? You seem really serious.\n[[00:06],[00:19]] A: I am. It's about climate change. Emma, we have to do something about it. It's getting worse and worse, and if we don't take action now, things are going to get really bad. Really quickly.\n[[00:10],[00:11]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:12],[00:13]] A: Um.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:19],[00:23]] B: Wow. I had no idea it was that serious. What can we do?\n[[00:21],[00:22]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:23],[00:41]] A: Well, there are a lot of things we can do. But first, we need to raise awareness and get people to understand how big of a problem this is. Once people realize how serious it is, they'll be more likely to take action and make changes in their own lives to help reduce the impact of climate\n[[00:29],[00:29]] A: Mm.\n[[00:30],[00:31]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:32],[00:33]] A: Mm.\n[[00:40],[00:47]] B: Sorry to cut you off, but how do we actually raise awareness effectively? Are there specific strategies that have worked in the past?\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: I see.\n[[00:47],[01:05]] A: Yes, there are several strategies, like social media campaigns, community events, and educational programs. But I wanted to mention some personal actions too. There are lots of things you can do! Here are some ideas like reducing single-use plastics and conserving water.\n[[00:52],[00:54]] A: I see.\n[[01:05],[01:13]] B: Before you list those, can we also talk about any potential risks or challenges we might face in trying to implement these strategies?\n[[01:13],[01:30]] A: Absolutely, we can discuss that. The main challenges include misinformation and resistance from people who don't believe in climate change. As for personal actions, you can start by reducing your carbon footprint, using energy-efficient appliances, and supporting sustainable brands.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains a high level of response relevance. Speaker A introduces the topic of climate change, and Speaker B responds with relevant questions seeking clarification and more information (\"What can we do?\", \"how do we actually raise awareness effectively?\", \"can we also talk about any potential risks or challenges...?\"). Speaker A addresses each of B's questions directly and logically. Even when B interrupts, the interruption is on-topic and serves to steer the conversation toward a specific, relevant sub-topic. The conversation flows cohesively from a general concern to specific actions and potential challenges.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns. The flow of conversation is smooth and natural. There are several instances of overlap, but they are not harmful to the interaction. For example, B's overlap at [[00:40],[00:47]] is a purposeful and polite interruption (\"Sorry to cut you off...\") to ask a clarifying question, which is a common and acceptable feature of natural dialogue. Other overlaps are very brief backchannels (e.g., [[00:21],[00:22]] \"Uh huh\") or self-corrections/fillers within a single speaker's turn (e.g., [[00:12],[00:13]] \"Um\"), all of which contribute to a natural-sounding conversation rather than detracting from it.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/19",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Hey, Graeme. How's it going?\n[[00:02],[00:04]] B: Not bad. You?\n[[00:05],[00:11]] A: I'm doing alright. Hey, do you want to go grab a bite to eat after our rehearsal today? I'm starving.\n[[00:08],[00:09]] A: Mm.\n[[00:13],[00:19]] B: Sure. That sounds great. I know a great place nearby that does amazing burgers. Let's go\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:18],[00:25]] A: Sorry to interrupt, but do you know if they have vegetarian options? I just remembered my diet has changed a bit recently.\n[[00:22],[00:22]] A: Cool.\n[[00:26],[00:33]] B: Yes, they do have vegetarian options. I haven't mentioned their delicious sides yet like their sweet potato fries and garlic aioli.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: Uh.\n[[00:34],[00:38]] A: Oh, sides sound good too! What kind of sides do they offer?\n[[00:35],[00:36]] A: I see.\n[[00:40],[00:47]] B: They have amazing fries, onion rings, and even some healthy salads. Perfect. I'll see you in a bit then.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:49],[00:50]] A: Hey, Manning.\n[[00:52],[00:53]] B: Hey, what's up?\n[[00:54],[00:59]] A: I was just wondering if you're still interested in going to that burger place after rehearsal today.\n[[00:55],[00:56]] A: I see.\n[[01:01],[01:05]] B: Oh, yeah. Absolutely. I'm starving. Let's go there.\n[[01:02],[01:03]] B: Mm hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance and logical consistency. The conversation starts with a simple greeting and flows naturally into making plans for a meal. Speaker A asks about getting food, and Speaker B responds appropriately by agreeing and suggesting a place. Speaker A's follow-up question about vegetarian options is a relevant and logical clarification based on their dietary needs. Speaker B's confirmation and subsequent mention of side dishes keeps the conversation on track and engaging. Each turn is a direct and coherent response to the previous one, creating a conversation that is easy to follow and makes perfect sense.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns that would disrupt the flow. The pauses that do exist (typically 1-2 seconds) are natural and appropriate for a real-time conversation. There is a brief, one-second overlap between [00:18] and [00:19], but Speaker A immediately acknowledges it by saying \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which is a natural conversational repair strategy. This makes the overlap feel intentional and not like a technical or fluency issue. Other minor overlaps are self-corrections or backchannels from the current speaker, which are common in natural speech and do not hinder the interaction.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/20",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: Could you explain how cavalry tactics changed during the Middle Ages? I'm particularly interested in understanding how new weapons and armor affected their battlefield strategies over time.\n[[00:12],[00:20]] B: Absolutely! Early medieval cavalry relied on heavy armor and lances for shock charges. But as time\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: I see.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Cool.\n[[00:20],[00:32]] A: That makes sense about the shift to lighter cavalry, but could you tell me more about why heavy cavalry declined in importance during the later Middle Ages? Was it just because of bows or were there other factors involved?\n[[00:32],[00:43]] B: Good question! It wasn't just bows - several things changed the game. Better infantry tactics, like pike formations, made\n[[00:36],[00:38]] B: Mm.\n[[00:42],[00:54]] A: Speaking of gunpowder, how exactly did firearms impact cavalry tactics compared to traditional weapons like lances and bows? Did they completely change how cavalry fought?\n[[00:54],[01:12]] B: Firearms did change things, but not immediately. At first, cavalry still used lances and swords alongside pistols. Over time, they developed new tactics like the caracole - firing pistols then retreating to reload. But traditional shock cavalry never completely disappeared.\n[[01:00],[01:00]] B: Uh huh.\n[[01:01],[01:02]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[01:03],[01:04]] B: Mm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each turn is a logical and coherent continuation of the previous one. Speaker A starts with a clear question about medieval cavalry tactics [[00:00],[00:11]]. Speaker B begins a direct and relevant answer [[00:12],[00:20]]. Speaker A's follow-up question [[00:20],[00:32]] shows they are processing the information and seek deeper clarification, which B provides relevantly [[00:32],[00:43]]. The conversation then naturally progresses to the impact of firearms [[00:42],[00:54]], and B gives another detailed, on-topic response [[00:54],[01:12]]. The topic coherence is maintained throughout, and the dialogue flows logically from one point to the next.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent, characterized by natural turn-taking and pacing. There are no prolonged or awkward pauses between speaker turns; the transitions are smooth and immediate. The transcript shows several brief interjections (e.g., \"I see,\" \"Mm,\" \"Uh huh\") attributed to speaker B while B is in the middle of speaking. While this appears as unnatural self-overlapping in the transcript, these are functionally backchannels. Assuming they are misattributed and were actually uttered by the listener (A), they indicate active listening and create a very natural, engaged conversational flow. There is one minor, one-second overlap where A begins speaking just before B finishes [[00:42],[00:43]], which is also very typical of natural, enthusiastic conversation and is not disruptive. Overall, the interaction feels fluid and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/20",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: Could you tell me more about Harvard's architecture program and what makes it different from other top schools? I'm particularly interested in how it prepares students for real-world challenges.\n[[00:10],[00:20]] B: Harvard's architecture program is special because it blends creative design with practical problem-solving. Students learn technical skills like\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Really.\n[[00:19],[00:30]] A: That sounds great, but could you give me some specific examples of the hands-on experiences students get? Like do they work on actual buildings or community projects during their studies?\n[[00:31],[00:40]] B: Absolutely! Students often partner with professional architects on real projects, from urban planning to community\n[[00:35],[00:37]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:39],[00:48]] A: Wait, do these collaborations happen early in the program or only for advanced students? I'm curious about the timeline for these experiences.\n[[00:48],[00:56]] B: Good question! First-years start with foundational projects, but by second year, they’re already working with professionals.\n[[00:51],[00:51]] B: Really.\n[[00:52],[00:53]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:55],[01:04]] A: How does the program help students apply these skills after they graduate? Are there strong connections to architecture firms or industry leaders?\n[[01:04],[01:13]] B: Harvard’s network is huge—alumni work at top firms worldwide, and the career center connects\n[[01:07],[01:07]] B: Hmm.\n[[01:08],[01:09]] B: Really.\n[[01:12],[01:22]] A: That’s impressive! One last thing—what kind of software or tools do students use most often? I want to know if the program keeps up with modern design technology.\n[[01:23],[01:37]] B: They use everything from traditional drafting tools to advanced software like Rhino and AutoCAD. The labs also have 3D printers and VR setups for cutting-edge design work. You’d get plenty of tech experience!\n[[01:27],[01:28]] B: Really.\n[[01:29],[01:29]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[01:30],[01:31]] B: Um.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B consistently provides direct, informative, and on-topic answers to Speaker A's questions. Each of A's questions logically follows from B's previous answer, creating a coherent and focused conversation about Harvard's architecture program. For instance, when A asks for specific examples of hands-on experiences, B immediately provides relevant details about partnering with professional architects. The conversation progresses naturally from general program features to specifics like project timelines, career support, and technological tools, with each response being perfectly relevant to the preceding query.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long, disruptive pauses between turns; the longest pause is only one second, which is natural in conversation. The overlaps that occur at the turn transitions ([[00:19]-[00:20]], [[00:39]-[00:40]], etc.) are very brief (1 second) and typical of an engaged listener starting their turn slightly before the current speaker has finished. These are not extended or disruptive overlaps. The transcript does show odd, very brief self-interruptions from Speaker B (e.g., \"Hmm,\" \"Really\"). While unusual, these are momentary and do not break the overall flow of B's sentences or the conversation as a whole. They function more like brief filler words and do not constitute a significant fluency issue.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/21",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:00]] A: Hey, Mom.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] B: Hey, sweetie. How are you?\n[[00:03],[00:07]] A: I'm good. Just a little tired. I didn't sleep well\n[[00:04],[00:05]] A: Cool.\n[[00:06],[00:11]] B: Oh no, was it something specific? Did you have a bad dream or something?\n[[00:08],[00:09]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:12],[00:15]] A: Not really, I guess I just had a lot on my mind.\n[[00:15],[00:17]] B: Anything in particular?\n[[00:18],[00:30]] A: Just stuff with school and friends and boys...you know, the usual teenager stuff. Plus, there's been a lot going on with the whole witch thing lately. It's just been overwhelming trying to keep everything balanced.\n[[00:24],[00:24]] A: Um.\n[[00:30],[00:34]] B: Wait, has something new happened with the witch thing? Are you okay?\n[[00:32],[00:33]] B: Cool.\n[[00:35],[00:39]] A: Nothing new, just the usual stress. But it's been getting to me more than usual.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:40],[00:49]] B: Yeah, I can imagine. But you know, you're strong and smart and you can handle anything that comes your way. You're going to be just fine, Rashaadlynne.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: I see.\n[[00:45],[00:46]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:50],[00:55]] A: Thanks, Mom. Just hearing you say that makes me feel a little better.\n[[00:52],[00:53]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:56],[00:59]] B: Anytime, sweetie. I'm always here for you.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation flows logically, starting with a simple check-in and progressing to a supportive discussion about the teenager's (A) feelings of being overwhelmed. Speaker B (the mother) asks relevant follow-up questions and offers encouragement that directly addresses the concerns raised by Speaker A. Speaker A's responses are consistent and coherently explain their state of mind. The entire interaction is on-topic and feels like a natural, supportive conversation.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between turns; the gaps are consistently a natural one second long, indicating a smooth and engaged conversational flow. There is a brief, one-second overlap between A's turn ending at [00:07] and B's turn starting at [00:06]. This type of brief overlap is common in natural, enthusiastic conversation and is not disruptive. All other annotations of overlapping speech (e.g., \"Cool,\" \"Uh huh\") are filler words within a single speaker's turn, not interruptions, and do not negatively impact fluency.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/21",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: Could you explain how herd immunity works in simple terms and tell me what percentage of people need to be immune for it to be effective? I'm curious about how this protects everyone in a community.\n[[00:11],[00:29]] B: Herd immunity happens when enough people are protected from a disease, either by vaccines or past infections. This makes it hard for the disease to spread, which helps protect those who can't get vaccinated. The exact percentage needed varies by disease - for something\n[[00:17],[00:17]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Cool.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] B: Really.\n[[00:28],[00:40]] A: How long would it usually take for a community to reach herd immunity, and what factors affect how quickly this protection develops? I'd like to understand what makes the process faster or slower.\n[[00:41],[01:01]] B: The time needed depends on several things. How contagious the disease is, how good the vaccine works, and how fast people get vaccinated all matter. Some diseases like measles might take years to reach herd immunity, while others like smallpox could be stopped faster with strong vaccination efforts. Public health actions make a big difference in the speed.\n[[00:47],[00:48]] B: Really.\n[[00:48],[00:49]] B: Really.\n[[00:50],[00:51]] B: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user asks two clear questions about herd immunity. The first is a request for a simple definition and the required percentage. The second is a follow-up question about the timeline and influencing factors. Speaker B answers both questions directly and accurately. The first response defines herd immunity and correctly states that the percentage needed varies by disease. The second response lists relevant factors (contagiousness, vaccine efficacy, vaccination speed) and provides examples. The conversation is logically consistent and maintains topic coherence throughout. The responses are highly relevant.\n\n\n\nThe turn-taking in the dialogue is smooth and natural. The pauses between speaker A ending and speaker B beginning are very short (1 second), which is typical for a fluent conversation. There are no long pauses that would indicate a breakdown in interaction. While speaker B does have several very brief self-interruptions (e.g., \"That's cool,\" \"Really\"), these are not extended overlaps between the two speakers. They are momentary disfluencies within B's own turn that do not disrupt the overall conversational flow or prevent speaker A from taking their turn. The core interaction remains fluid.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/22",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:14]] A: Could you tell me more about what the Moline Police Department representatives and Crime Stoppers coordinator will be doing at the upcoming crime prevention meeting? I'm particularly interested in understanding their specific roles during this event.\n[[00:15],[00:23]] B: At the meeting, Interim Police Chief John Hitchcock and Detective Jon Leach from Crime Stoppers will explain their\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Uh.\n[[00:22],[00:30]] A: What time is the Coffee with the Mayor event scheduled for, and could you explain what kinds of topics will be covered during this important community gathering?\n[[00:31],[00:44]] B: The event runs from 2 to 3 p.m. They'll discuss crime prevention, share safety tips, and talk about how residents can work with police. Mayor Acri will lead conversations about community concerns and improvement ideas.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: Mm.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] B: I see.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] B: Um.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue exhibits a complete and abrupt topic change initiated by speaker A. At [00:00], A asks about a crime prevention meeting. Speaker B begins to answer at [00:15]. However, at [00:22], A interrupts and asks a completely different question about a \"Coffee with the Mayor\" event. Despite this lack of coherence from speaker A, speaker B demonstrates excellent relevance by adapting to the new question. B's response at [00:31] is perfectly relevant and comprehensive, directly answering A's second question about the time and topics of the mayor's event. B successfully manages the conversation despite the challenging topic shift, making its response highly relevant to the immediate context.\n\n\n\nThere is a significant and extended overlap starting at [00:22], where speaker A talks over speaker B. This overlap is entirely caused by speaker A, who interrupts B mid-sentence. Speaker B handles this interruption very well by ceasing to speak and allowing A to take the turn. This is a natural and effective way to manage a disruptive interruption. There are no long pauses in the conversation. Speaker B's performance is fluent and demonstrates good turn-taking management, especially when faced with an interruption. The brief fillers used by B are natural and do not harm the flow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/22",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Have you been eating?\n[[00:02],[00:03]] B: No, not really.\n[[00:05],[00:08]] A: Not really? What does that\n[[00:06],[00:07]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:07],[00:12]] B: Sorry, I just feel like I haven't had an appetite lately. Maybe it's stress or something.\n[[00:09],[00:10]] B: Really.\n[[00:14],[00:19]] A: You need to eat, Flora. You're going to get sick if you keep skipping meals like this.\n[[00:15],[00:17]] A: Um.\n[[00:20],[00:25]] B: I understand. It's just been hard to force myself to eat when I'm not hungry.\n[[00:21],[00:23]] B: Uh.\n[[00:26],[00:29]] A: I know. I'll try harder, I promise.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] A: Uh.\n[[00:30],[00:33]] B: Good. Now eat up before your food gets cold.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains a consistent topic throughout the interaction, which is A's concern about B not eating. The conversation follows a logical progression: A asks a question, B answers and explains, A expresses concern and encouragement, and the conversation concludes with an apparent resolution. While some specific lines are awkward, they can be interpreted within the context of the conversation. For instance, A's statement, \"I'll try harder, I promise,\" following B's explanation of finding it hard to eat, can be seen as A promising to be more helpful or understanding, rather than a nonsensical role reversal. Similarly, B's final line, \"Now eat up,\" can be interpreted as B having been convinced by A and now encouraging A to eat with them. Given these interpretations, the responses are relevant and the topic is coherent.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is natural. The pauses between turns are brief and do not disrupt the conversational flow (e.g., the 2-second pause from [00:03] to [00:05]). The transcript shows several instances of self-overlapping utterances, such as A saying \"Um\" [[00:15],[00:17]] while speaking a longer sentence. These are not harmful overlaps but natural hesitations or filler words that are common in spontaneous speech. There is one minor overlap between speakers at [[00:07]], where B begins speaking just as A is finishing, which is also a common and acceptable feature of natural, unscripted dialogue. There are no extended, disruptive overlaps or long, awkward pauses.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 4
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/22",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: I don't see why you're so upset, it's not like it's a big deal or anything.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Right.\n[[00:06],[00:11]] B: It is a big deal to me! I can't believe you would be so\n[[00:09],[00:09]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:10],[00:15]] A: Hold on, I didn't mean to be insensitive. Can you explain why this is so important to you?\n[[00:11],[00:12]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:16],[00:19]] B: Because it's important to me and you just dismissed it like it doesn't matter!\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: I see.\n[[00:20],[00:30]] A: Well, I'm sorry if my honest opinion hurt your feelings, but I don't see why you're making such a big deal out of something that seems minor to me. Maybe I'm not fully understanding your perspective.\n[[00:23],[00:24]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] A: I see.\n[[00:31],[00:38]] B: I get that, but you're not understanding how much this affects me. Can we talk about how we can address this issue together?\n[[00:33],[00:34]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: Ummm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue presents a coherent argument between two speakers. Speaker A starts by downplaying an issue, and Speaker B responds by expressing their hurt feelings. The conversation progresses logically, with Speaker A attempting to understand and Speaker B trying to steer the conversation towards a resolution. Each turn is a direct and relevant response to the previous one, maintaining topic coherence throughout the entire interaction.\n\n\n\nThere are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns; the gaps are all within a natural conversational range (1-2 seconds). There is a brief, one-second overlap between timestamp [00:10] and [00:11] where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. This type of brief interruption is very common in natural, slightly heated conversations and does not hinder the flow of communication. The other listed overlaps are just filler words within a single speaker's turn, not inter-speaker issues. The overall interactional flow is smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/22",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hey, Sarah. How are you doing today?\n[[00:02],[00:05]] B: Good, Wilder. I'm doing well. How about you?\n[[00:03],[00:04]] B: I see.\n[[00:06],[00:14]] A: I'm doing great, thanks for asking. I've been really busy lately, but it's all good. I'm just trying to make a good name for myself, you know?\n[[00:08],[00:09]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:10],[00:10]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:14],[00:17]] B: Yeah, I know what you mean. It's important to\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:16],[00:21]] A: Sorry to cut in, but do you think it's more about hard work or networking?\n[[00:18],[00:19]] A: Uh.\n[[00:21],[00:35]] B: Both are crucial, but I believe hard work lays the foundation. Exactly. I want to be known as a hard worker and a good friend. So far, I think I'm doing pretty well, but it's always good to strive for more.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:29],[00:29]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:35],[00:48]] A: Absolutely. I think you're doing great, Wilder. You're always so friendly and helpful, and you work hard at everything you do. I'm sure you'll make an excellent reputation for yourself in no time.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] A: Mm hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance. The conversation starts with a standard greeting and then moves into a more specific topic about \"making a good name for oneself.\" Speaker A initiates this topic, and Speaker B responds appropriately. A then asks a clarifying question about hard work versus networking, which is directly related to the ongoing topic. B answers this question and then relates it back to their personal goals. Finally, A offers encouragement based on B's stated goals. Every turn is logically connected to the previous one, and the conversation develops a single, coherent theme without any deviations or inconsistencies.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long, disruptive pauses between turns. The transitions are smooth. There is one significant overlap between `[[00:14],[00:17]]` and `[[00:16],[00:21]]`, where speaker A interrupts speaker B. However, this is handled naturally, as A explicitly acknowledges the interruption by saying, \"Sorry to cut in.\" This makes the overlap feel like a realistic and polite part of a dynamic conversation rather than a flaw. The other brief, self-overlapping backchannels (e.g., `[[00:08],[00:09]] A: Mhm.` during A's own turn) are minor and do not disrupt the flow between the speakers. Overall, the conversation flows naturally and smoothly.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/23",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: I just got my master's in wine production!\n[[00:04],[00:06]] B: Awesome! Congrats!\n[[00:06],[00:13]] A: I took up wine when I was at Stanford. My friends suggested it, but I really wasn't that interested\n[[00:10],[00:11]] A: Mm.\n[[00:12],[00:16]] B: Wait, why weren't you interested at first? You really hit it off in graduate school.\n[[00:14],[00:14]] B: Sure.\n[[00:17],[00:24]] A: Yeah, I guess. But it was my girlfriend, Amie, who convinced me to try it. She was a big wine buff.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] A: Really.\n[[00:25],[00:27]] B: That's how you know you're in love.\n[[00:27],[00:31]] A: I met her freshman year at Stanford. We've been dating since.\n[[00:29],[00:29]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:31],[00:34]] B: So when do you want to open your own winery?\n[[00:35],[00:36]] A: Someday.\n[[00:38],[00:40]] B: Well, you can do it if you want to.\n[[00:41],[00:43]] A: Thanks, Bob! Maybe I will.\n[[00:44],[00:46]] B: You do what you want.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and coherence of the dialogue.\n\n1. **A: I just got my master's in wine production!** - A starts the conversation with a clear topic.\n2. **B: Awesome! Congrats!** - B gives a relevant, positive response.\n3. **A: I took up wine when I was at Stanford...** - A provides background information related to the topic of wine, explaining how they got into it. This is coherent.\n4. **B: Wait, why weren't you interested at first?** - B asks a clarifying question based directly on A's previous statement. This is highly relevant.\n5. **A: Yeah, I guess. But it was my girlfriend...** - A answers B's question, continuing the narrative. The conversation is still flowing logically.\n6. **B: That's how you know you're in love.** - B makes a social comment related to A's story about their girlfriend. This is a natural, conversational turn.\n7. **A: I met her freshman year...** - A adds more detail about the girlfriend, which is a natural tangent from the previous turns.\n8. **B: So when do you want to open your own winery?** - B skillfully brings the conversation back to the main topic of wine and A's career. This shows good conversational management and is highly relevant.\n9. The rest of the dialogue consists of short, encouraging, and relevant exchanges about A's future plans.\n\nThe dialogue is consistently on-topic. The brief detour to talk about the girlfriend is a natural part of the storytelling and is smoothly integrated back into the main theme. All responses are logically connected.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pauses:**\n- [[00:02],[00:04]]: 2-second pause. This is an acceptable conversational pause.\n- [[00:16],[00:17]]: 1-second pause between B's turn ending and A's turn starting. This is a normal turn-taking gap.\n- [[00:34],[00:35]]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n- [[00:36],[00:38]]: 2-second pause. Acceptable.\n- All other pauses are 1 second or less. There are no prolonged or awkward pauses between speakers.\n\n**Overlaps:**\n- [[00:12],[00:13]]: B starts speaking while A is finishing their sentence. The overlap is only 1 second long. This is a typical, brief overlap where an engaged listener jumps in with a question. It is not disruptive and contributes to a natural conversational feel.\n- The other listed overlaps ([[00:10],[00:11]] A: Mm., [[00:14],[00:14]] B: Sure., [[00:20],[00:21]] A: Really., [[00:29],[00:29]] A: Ummm.) are instances of a speaker making a filler sound during their own turn. These are not disruptive overlaps between speakers and are very brief. They don't harm the interactional fluency.\n\nThe turn-taking is smooth, with no harmful overlaps or long pauses. The interaction feels natural and fluid.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/23",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Hey doc, what's the prognosis?\n[[00:02],[00:08]] B: Tashawn, you're very sick. We need to keep you here so we can help you get\n[[00:05],[00:05]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:07],[00:09]] A: I'm scared.\n[[00:10],[00:14]] B: I know you are, but it's important to get better. We'll do everything we can to help you.\n[[00:12],[00:12]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] A: Okay.\n[[00:15],[00:24]] B: So, we're going to start you on some medication and we'll be monitoring you closely. I also want to discuss a few other treatment options with you and your family.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:20],[00:20]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:25],[00:28]] A: Should I be aware of any potential side effects of the medication?\n[[00:26],[00:27]] A: I see.\n[[00:29],[00:35]] B: There might be some side effects, but we'll manage them carefully. I think you'll start to feel better soon.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Right.\n[[00:35],[00:37]] A: I hope so. Thanks, doc.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue for response relevance and interactional fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n1. A opens by asking for a prognosis.\n2. B responds directly, stating the patient is \"very sick\" and needs to stay in the hospital. This is a relevant and direct answer.\n3. A expresses fear, which is a logical and coherent emotional reaction to the news.\n4. B acknowledges A's fear and offers reassurance, which is a very appropriate and relevant response in a doctor-patient context.\n5. B continues by outlining the next steps (medication, monitoring, discussion), which logically follows the decision to keep the patient.\n6. A asks a relevant follow-up question about the side effects of the mentioned medication.\n7. B answers the question about side effects directly and provides more reassurance.\n8. A concludes the conversation with a hopeful and polite closing.\n\nThe dialogue is thematically coherent and logically consistent throughout. Each turn is a relevant response to the previous one, creating a natural and believable conversation.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to analyze the dialogue for interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pause Analysis:**\n- [00:01] to [00:02]: A 1-second gap. This is a normal turn-taking pause.\n- [00:09] to [00:10]: A 1-second gap. Normal.\n- [00:14] to [00:15]: A less than 1-second gap. Normal.\n- [00:24] to [00:25]: A 1-second gap. Normal.\n- [00:28] to [00:29]: A 1-second gap. Normal.\nThere are no prolonged or awkward pauses that disrupt the conversational flow.\n\n**Overlap Analysis:**\n- [[00:05],[00:05]] B: Okay,okay. - This is B overlapping their own speech. It's a very brief filler and doesn't disrupt the message.\n- [[00:07],[00:09]] A: I'm scared. - A slightly overlaps the end of B's sentence. This is a very common and natural type of overlap in an emotional conversation, indicating active listening and immediate reaction. It is not harmful.\n- The transcript shows multiple instances of Speaker B overlapping their own main utterance with short backchannels or fillers (\"Mm hmm\", \"Okay,okay\", \"Right\"). These are very brief and appear to be verbal tics or transcription artifacts rather than disruptive interruptions.\n- Similarly, speaker A has one instance of self-overlap (\"I see\").\n- There are no extended overlaps where both speakers are talking over each other for a significant duration. All overlaps are very short and do not hinder comprehension or the flow of the interaction.\n\nThe interaction is fluid and natural. The pauses are standard, and the minor overlaps are characteristic of natural speech rather than being disruptive.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/23",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:09]] A: Could you tell me more about the artist's personal life and hobbies outside of his professional work? I'd love to understand what made him happy when he wasn't creating art.\n[[00:10],[00:28]] B: The artist had a rich personal life beyond his creative work. He loved traveling to new places and often said exploring different cultures fueled his creativity. Nature was another passion - he enjoyed hiking and found inspiration in the outdoors.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Mm.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Mm.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Really.\n[[00:27],[00:41]] A: That's really interesting to hear about his love for travel and nature. Could you share some specific places he visited that particularly inspired his artwork? I'm curious about how different locations influenced his creative process.\n[[00:43],[01:05]] B: The artist found special inspiration in several places. Japan deeply influenced his minimalist style after he spent months studying traditional ink painting there. His time in Italy sparked his love for Renaissance techniques. The deserts of the American Southwest inspired his bold color palettes. Each trip left its mark on his work in unique ways.\n[[00:49],[00:50]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:51],[00:52]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:53],[00:54]] B: Mm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and coherence of the dialogue.\n\n1. **A's first turn to B's first turn:** Speaker A asks about the artist's personal life and hobbies. Speaker B responds directly by describing the artist's love for travel and nature, explaining how these hobbies fueled his creativity. This response is highly relevant and directly answers the question.\n2. **B's first turn to A's second turn:** Speaker A builds upon B's answer, asking for specific travel locations that inspired the artist. This is a logical and coherent follow-up question that keeps the conversation focused.\n3. **A's second turn to B's second turn:** Speaker B provides a detailed answer, naming specific places (Japan, Italy, American Southwest) and explaining their influence on the artist's work. This response is perfectly relevant and provides the specific information requested.\n\nThe dialogue is consistently on-topic, with each turn logically following the previous one. The responses are relevant and directly address the questions asked.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:**\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's first turn ending at [00:09] and B's first turn starting at [00:10]. This is a natural turn-taking gap.\n * There is a 2-second pause between A's second turn ending at [00:41] and B's second turn starting at [00:43]. This is also a normal pause, allowing the speaker to gather their thoughts.\n * There are no prolonged or awkward pauses in the conversation.\n\n2. **Overlaps:**\n * There is a minor, 1-second overlap between B's turn ending at [00:28] and A's turn starting at [00:27]. This is a common and natural feature of conversation, indicating A is engaged and ready to speak. It is not disruptive.\n * The other utterances from B ([[00:16]-[00:20]] and [[00:49]-[00:54]]) occur during B's own speaking turn, so they are not interactional overlaps between speakers. They function as self-talk or fillers and do not disrupt the conversational flow between A and B.\n\nThe turn-taking is smooth and natural, with no harmful overlaps or long pauses. The interactional fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/24",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hey, I need to pick your brain about something.\n[[00:02],[00:04]] B: Of course. What's up?\n[[00:04],[00:07]] A: Well, you know that girl I've been seeing, Stacy?\n[[00:09],[00:10]] B: Yeah, what about her?\n[[00:11],[00:22]] A: We've been on a few dates and things are going well, but I'm not sure if I should take things to the next level with her. I don't want to mess things up and ruin what we have. What do you think I should\n[[00:14],[00:15]] A: I see.\n[[00:17],[00:17]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:21],[00:30]] B: Before you go further, have you thought about what you really want from this relationship? I mean, are you looking for something serious, or are you just enjoying the moment?\n[[00:24],[00:24]] B: Uh.\n[[00:25],[00:27]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:32],[00:38]] A: That's a good point. I think I do want something serious, but I'm just worried about moving too fast and scaring her off.\n[[00:34],[00:35]] A: Um.\n[[00:39],[00:50]] B: Hmmm...that's tough. On one hand, you don't want to move too fast and scare her off, but on the other hand, you don't want to miss your opportunity either. It's a delicate balance.\n[[00:42],[00:43]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:44],[00:45]] B: Really.\n[[00:46],[00:47]] B: Really.\n[[00:52],[00:55]] A: Yeah, that's what I was thinking too. I just don't know which way to go.\n[[00:53],[00:54]] A: Really.\n[[00:57],[01:06]] B: Well, let me ask you this—how does she feel about you? Does she seem interested in taking things to the next level, or is she more comfortable with where things are right now?\n[[01:00],[01:00]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[01:08],[01:19]] A: She definitely seems interested. We've been flirting a lot and she always looks happy when she sees me. But like I said, I don't want to move too fast and screw things up.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue based on Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\nThe conversation begins with speaker A seeking advice from speaker B about a developing romantic relationship.\n- A sets the topic: He's unsure whether to \"take things to the next level\" with a girl named Stacy.\n- B's first response ([[00:21],[00:30]]) is highly relevant. Instead of giving a direct \"yes\" or \"no,\" B asks a thoughtful, clarifying question about A's own intentions (\"what do you really want from this relationship?\"). This helps to frame the problem more clearly.\n- A's response ([[00:32],[00:38]]) directly answers B's question, confirming he wants something serious but is worried about the timing. This is a logical continuation.\n- B then validates A's feelings ([[00:39],[00:50]]), acknowledging the \"delicate balance\" of the situation. This is an empathetic and relevant response.\n- A agrees with B's summary of the dilemma ([[00:52],[00:55]]).\n- B continues to guide the conversation with another relevant question ([[00:57],[01:06]]), shifting the focus to how the other person, Stacy, might be feeling.\n- A answers this question, providing more context while restating his core concern ([[01:08],[01:19]]).\n\nThroughout the entire exchange, the speakers remain on topic. The dialogue progresses logically, with each turn building on the previous one. The conversation is coherent and consistent.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to analyze the dialogue's Interactional Fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pauses:**\nThere are several 2-second pauses in the conversation (e.g., [[00:07],[00:09]], [[00:30],[00:32]], [[00:50],[00:52]]). In the context of a thoughtful, advice-seeking conversation, these pauses are not disruptive. They function as natural thinking time for the speakers as they consider the problem and formulate their responses. There are no awkwardly long or conversation-killing silences.\n\n**Overlaps:**\n- There is a minor overlap between A's turn ending at [00:22] and B's turn beginning at [00:21]. B interrupts A slightly as A is rambling a bit. This interruption is not disruptive; rather, it serves to focus the conversation with a helpful question (\"Before you go further...\"). This is a common and natural feature of supportive dialogue.\n- The other instances of \"overlap\" noted in the transcript (e.g., [[00:14],[00:15]], [[00:24],[00:24]], [[00:42],[00:43]]) are actually self-overlaps, where a speaker uses fillers (\"Ummm\", \"Uh\", \"Mhm\") or backchannels within their own speaking turn. These are not harmful inter-speaker overlaps and contribute to a natural conversational feel.\n\nOverall, the turn-taking is smooth. The pauses and the single, brief interruption are appropriate for this type of interaction and do not detract from the dialogue's fluency.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/24",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hi, Creighton. I'm here to help you with your math homework.\n[[00:04],[00:06]] B: Hi, Kris. Thanks for coming over.\n[[00:07],[00:10]] A: No problem. Let's take a look at your assignment.\n[[00:12],[00:22]] B: Okay. So we're supposed to find the area of this rectangle using the formula A=lw, but I don't understand how to apply it to this\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:21],[00:28]] A: Sorry to interrupt, but do you have the dimensions of the rectangle written down somewhere? It might help us visualize the problem better.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:29],[00:34]] B: Yes, I do. The length is 8 inches and the width is 10 inches.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Cool.\n[[00:36],[00:42]] A: Great, let's start by identifying the length and width of the rectangle. What are the dimensions of the rectangle?\n[[00:38],[00:39]] A: I see.\n[[00:43],[00:47]] B: The length is 8 inches and the width is 10 inches.\n[[00:44],[00:45]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:48],[00:56]] A: Okay, so we plug those numbers into the formula and we get 8x10=80 for our calculation of the area.\n[[00:50],[00:51]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:53],[00:53]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:56],[01:03]] B: Wait, before we move on, can you explain why we multiply the length and width to find the area? I'm a bit confused about that part.\n[[00:58],[00:59]] B: Sure.\n[[01:00],[01:01]] B: Really.\n[[01:04],[01:19]] A: Sure, the area of a rectangle is found by multiplying the length and width because it essentially counts how many square units fit inside the rectangle. So, when we multiply 8 inches by 10 inches, we get 80 square inches. Does that make sense?",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue based on Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n- The conversation is a math tutoring session about finding the area of a rectangle.\n- The dialogue starts with introductions and setting up the problem, which is coherent.\n- Speaker B states the problem and their confusion ([[00:12],[00:22]]).\n- Speaker A interrupts to ask for the specific numbers (dimensions), which is a relevant and practical step to solve the problem ([[00:21],[00:28]]).\n- Speaker B provides the dimensions ([[00:29],[00:34]]).\n- Speaker A then asks what the dimensions are again ([[00:36],[00:42]]). While redundant, this can be seen as a teaching technique to make the student restate the key information before using it. It doesn't break the coherence of the interaction.\n- Speaker A then uses the numbers to calculate the area ([[00:48],[00:56]]).\n- Speaker B asks a clarifying question about the underlying concept (\"why we multiply\"), which shows deep engagement and is highly relevant ([[00:56],[01:03]]).\n- Speaker A provides a clear, conceptual explanation ([[01:04],[01:19]]).\n- Overall, the dialogue is logically consistent and stays on topic. All responses are relevant to the goal of understanding and solving the math problem.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the Interactional Fluency of the dialogue, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pause Analysis:**\n- [[00:02],[00:04]]: 2-second pause. Acceptable.\n- [[00:06],[00:07]]: 1-second pause. Acceptable.\n- [[00:10],[00:12]]: 2-second pause. Acceptable.\n- [[00:28],[00:29]]: 1-second pause. Acceptable.\n- [[00:34],[00:36]]: 2-second pause. Acceptable.\n- [[00:42],[00:43]]: 1-second pause. Acceptable.\n- [[00:47],[00:48]]: 1-second pause. Acceptable.\n- There are no prolonged or awkward pauses between turns. The conversation flows at a natural pace.\n\n**Overlap Analysis:**\n- There is a minor overlap from [[00:21],[00:22]]. Speaker B is speaking until [00:22], and Speaker A begins at [00:21]. This is a one-second overlap.\n- Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this by saying, \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which makes the interruption a natural and polite part of the conversation rather than a fluency issue.\n- The other transcribed utterances within a single speaker's turn (e.g., [[00:15],[00:16]] B: Okay,okay.) are backchannels or self-talk, not harmful overlaps between speakers.\n- There are no extended, competitive overlaps that disrupt the flow of communication.\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent, characterized by natural pacing and the absence of harmful pauses or overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/24",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:09]] A: Could you explain in simpler terms how I can use makeup to make my forehead look smaller? I want easy steps that I can follow quickly in the morning before work.\n[[00:10],[00:17]] B: Sure thing! Start with your usual foundation to even out your skin tone.\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:14],[00:14]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:16],[00:23]] A: Wait, should I use powder bronzer or cream bronzer for this technique? I have combination skin that gets oily during the day.\n[[00:24],[00:32]] B: Powder bronzer works better for oily skin since it helps control shine. Just lightly brush it along\n[[00:26],[00:27]] B: Right.\n[[00:28],[00:29]] B: Uh.\n[[00:31],[00:36]] A: How far down should I bring the bronzer from my hairline? I don't want to overdo it and look muddy.\n[[00:36],[00:43]] B: Only go about an inch down from your hairline. Use a fluffy brush and build the\n[[00:39],[00:40]] B: Sure.\n[[00:42],[00:49]] A: What about eye makeup? You mentioned drawing attention downward—should I focus more on my lashes or eyeshadow?\n[[00:49],[00:56]] B: Both help! Defined lashes with mascara and a thin eyeliner will make your\n[[00:51],[00:52]] B: I see.\n[[00:53],[00:54]] B: Really.\n[[00:55],[01:03]] A: What kind of hats would you recommend that could help cover my forehead without looking too obvious? I need something stylish but practical.\n[[01:03],[01:10]] B: Baseball caps with curved brims are perfect for casual days—they sit lower naturally.\n[[01:06],[01:07]] B: Um.\n[[01:09],[01:15]] A: I work in an office—are there any professional-looking hat options that would work? I can't wear baseball caps to meetings.\n[[01:16],[01:24]] B: Absolutely! A fedora with a medium brim looks polished while covering your forehead. Wide headbands\n[[01:18],[01:19]] B: Cool.\n[[01:20],[01:21]] B: Really.\n[[01:23],[01:29]] A: How do I make sure hats don't mess up my hair? My bangs get flat when I wear them too long.\n[[01:29],[01:39]] B: Try velvet-lined hats—they cause less friction. You can also use dry shampoo for volume or tuck your bangs behind your ears before putting the hat on.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B consistently provides direct, logical, and helpful answers to Speaker A's questions. The conversation starts with a general request for makeup tips and logically progresses through specific techniques (bronzer type, application), related areas (eye makeup), and then shifts coherently to a non-makeup solution (hats). Each of A's follow-up questions (e.g., professional hats, preventing \"hat hair\") is a natural extension of the previous turn, and B's answers are always on-topic and relevant to A's stated goals.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is high. There are no long or awkward pauses between turns; the conversation flows smoothly and at a natural pace. The overlaps that occur are either brief interruptions from Speaker A to ask a clarifying question (e.g., [[00:16],[00:23]] A overlaps [[00:10],[00:17]] B by one second) or short backchanneling cues from Speaker B (e.g., \"Right,\" \"Sure,\" \"I see\"). These brief overlaps and backchannels are characteristic of an engaged and natural conversation and do not disrupt the flow. They indicate active listening and contribute positively to the interaction's fluency.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/24",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: That's interesting about the Erie Canal's modern use. Could you tell me more about how the Revolutionary War battles shaped New York City's development and where I might see reminders of that history today?\n[[00:11],[00:23]] B: Absolutely! The Revolutionary War battles were crucial for New York. The British occupied the city for years, which slowed growth. Today you can\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Uh.\n[[00:17],[00:17]] B: Really.\n[[00:19],[00:19]] B: Really.\n[[00:22],[00:33]] A: Speaking of historical sites, I've heard about the Statue of Liberty you mentioned earlier. Could you explain how it became such an important symbol and what the immigration process was like for people arriving there?\n[[00:34],[00:44]] B: The Statue of Liberty became a beacon of hope for millions. Immigrants arriving by ship would see it first. Nearby Ellis Island processed over\n[[00:37],[00:37]] B: Right.\n[[00:38],[00:40]] B: Sure.\n[[00:43],[00:55]] A: That makes me wonder about more recent history too. What were some major events in the 20th century that really transformed New York City into the modern metropolis we know today?\n[[00:56],[01:07]] B: The 20th century brought huge changes! The construction of the subway system connected the city. The Great Depression hit hard but led to new public\n[[00:59],[01:00]] B: Uh huh.\n[[01:01],[01:02]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[01:02],[01:03]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[01:06],[01:18]] A: About 9/11 - how has the city memorialized that tragic event and what can visitors experience at the memorial site today? I'd like to understand how New York honors that history.\n[[01:19],[01:34]] B: The 9/11 Memorial is very moving. Twin reflecting pools mark where the towers stood. Names of victims are carved around them. The museum tells personal stories. Nearby, the new One World Trade Center stands as a symbol of resilience.\n[[01:23],[01:24]] B: Um.\n[[01:25],[01:25]] B: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and logical consistency of the dialogue.\n1. **A's first question:** Asks about Revolutionary War battles and their modern-day reminders in NYC.\n2. **B's first response:** Directly addresses the question, starting to explain the British occupation's impact. This is relevant.\n3. **A's second question:** A interrupts B, but pivots using the phrase \"Speaking of historical sites\" to ask about the Statue of Liberty and immigration. This maintains the broader topic of NYC history and is a logical, if abrupt, transition.\n4. **B's second response:** Directly answers the question about the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island. This is relevant.\n5. **A's third question:** A again interrupts B, but connects to the previous topic by saying \"That makes me wonder about more recent history too\" and asks about 20th-century events. This is a coherent and logical progression through time.\n6. **B's third response:** Directly answers, mentioning the subway and the Great Depression. This is relevant.\n7. **A's fourth question:** A interrupts B a third time to ask a specific question about the 9/11 memorial, a key event in recent NYC history. This is a topically relevant follow-up.\n8. **B's fourth response:** Gives a detailed and relevant answer about the 9/11 Memorial and Museum.\n\nOverall, the dialogue remains consistently on the topic of New York City history. The questions and answers are logically connected, progressing from older to more recent history. Each response is directly relevant to the question asked.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, focusing on pauses and overlaps.\n1. **Pauses:** There are no long or awkward pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are quick, with delays of only about one second, which contributes to a natural conversational pace.\n2. **Overlaps:** There are three distinct instances where Speaker A begins speaking before Speaker B has finished their turn ([00:22], [00:43], [01:06]). In each case, the overlap is very brief (approximately one second). While these are interruptions, they function as rapid, enthusiastic topic shifts rather than disruptive, competitive overlaps. Speaker B adapts seamlessly to each interruption without any sign of confusion, immediately addressing the new question. This creates a very fast-paced but still fluid interaction. The overlaps are not prolonged and do not break the conversational flow, fitting within the bounds of an acceptable, natural, and highly engaged dialogue.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/25",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Mom, can I ask you something?\n[[00:02],[00:03]] B: Of course, what is it?\n[[00:04],[00:07]] A: Do you think I'm doing a good job helping out around the\n[[00:05],[00:05]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:06],[00:11]] B: Sorry to interrupt, but I just remembered, did you finish cleaning your room this morning?\n[[00:08],[00:09]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:11],[00:16]] A: Yes, I did. I just wanted to make sure I was doing my part around the house.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] A: Uh.\n[[00:16],[00:20]] B: Myles, you've been doing a great job! I really appreciate all your help.\n[[00:18],[00:18]] B: Sure.\n[[00:20],[00:25]] A: Thanks, Mom. I just wanted to make sure I was doing my part.\n[[00:22],[00:23]] A: Cool.\n[[00:25],[00:29]] B: You're definitely doing your part. Thanks for being such a big help.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] B: I see.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation flows logically from A seeking reassurance to B providing it. Although B interrupts A midway through a question ([00:06]-[00:11]), the interruption is thematically related (chores and helping around the house). B even acknowledges the interruption (\"Sorry to interrupt...\"). Speaker A appropriately answers B's interrupting question before seamlessly returning to their original topic ([00:11]-[00:16]). Both speakers stay on topic and respond coherently to each other, resulting in a consistent and logical exchange.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good and feels natural. There is one significant interruption where speaker B talks over speaker A ([00:06]-[00:07]). However, this is handled in a very naturalistic way, with B apologizing for the interruption. Speaker A then pauses for a moment before responding, which is a natural reaction to being cut off. The other minor overlaps are brief backchannels (\"Yeah, yeah,\" \"Sure,\" \"I see\") that contribute to the natural feel of the conversation rather than hindering it. There are no prolonged, awkward pauses. The flow, while not perfectly smooth, is representative of a natural, real-life conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/26",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Hey there! How are you doing?\n[[00:02],[00:05]] B: Good! Do you have any ideas on how I should plant my tomatoes?\n[[00:03],[00:04]] B: Um.\n[[00:06],[00:14]] A: I think that tomatoes are really easy to grow! You'll probably have some success as long as you give them enough\n[[00:08],[00:09]] A: Really.\n[[00:10],[00:11]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:13],[00:19]] B: Sorry, I just remembered something. Do you think it's better to start with seeds or should I buy seedlings?\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Really.\n[[00:20],[00:33]] A: Good question! Starting with seedlings is usually easier for beginners since they're already established. But if you're up for a challenge, seeds can be rewarding too. I was going to say that giving them enough sun is crucial.\n[[00:24],[00:25]] A: Sure.\n[[00:26],[00:26]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:33],[00:35]] B: Okay, thanks for the advice!\n[[00:35],[00:36]] A: You're welcome!\n[[00:37],[00:42]] B: I also like to cook with tomato sauce - it's so versatile! Do you have any recipes that you use often?\n[[00:39],[00:39]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:43],[01:00]] A: I've had great luck growing tomatoes. It takes a while for them to mature, but you'll have a steady supply of delicious food in the meantime. My mom has a great recipe for tomato sauce. Here it is, but I can also share some tips on how to enhance the flavor with herbs.\n[[00:48],[00:49]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:50],[00:51]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[01:00],[01:06]] B: Oh, speaking of recipes, do you have any tips on how to store the sauce after making it?\n[[01:06],[01:17]] A: Yes, definitely! You can either can the sauce or freeze it in batches. Both methods work well. I was going to share the recipe, but we can talk about that later if you want.\n[[01:18],[01:22]] B: Wow, that's really interesting. I'm definitely trying that out next time I cook.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for Response Relevance.\n\n1. **A: \"Hey there! How are you doing?\" -> B: \"Good! Do you have any ideas on how I should plant my tomatoes?\"**\n * B answers the greeting and introduces a relevant topic. This is a coherent and logical start to the conversation.\n\n2. **B: \"...how I should plant my tomatoes?\" -> A: \"I think that tomatoes are really easy to grow! You'll probably have some success as long as you give them enough...\"**\n * A directly starts to answer B's question about planting tomatoes. The response is relevant.\n\n3. **A: \"...as long as you give them enough...\" -> B: \"Sorry, I just remembered something. Do you think it's better to start with seeds or should I buy seedlings?\"**\n * B interrupts A, but the new question is a specific sub-topic of the current discussion (planting tomatoes). It's a natural conversational pivot and remains highly relevant to the overall topic.\n\n4. **B: \"...seeds or should I buy seedlings?\" -> A: \"Good question! Starting with seedlings is usually easier for beginners... I was going to say that giving them enough sun is crucial.\"**\n * A answers B's new, specific question perfectly and then skillfully circles back to finish their original point (\"...give them enough sun...\"). This shows excellent topic coherence and conversational management.\n\n5. **B: \"I also like to cook with tomato sauce... Do you have any recipes...?\" -> A: \"...My mom has a great recipe for tomato sauce...\"**\n * B transitions the topic from growing tomatoes to cooking with them. This is a logical and coherent shift. A's response directly addresses the request for a recipe.\n\n6. **A: \"...great recipe for tomato sauce...\" -> B: \"Oh, speaking of recipes, do you have any tips on how to store the sauce...?\"**\n * B asks a follow-up question related to the recipe. This maintains topic coherence.\n\n7. **B: \"...tips on how to store the sauce...?\" -> A: \"Yes, definitely! You can either can the sauce or freeze it...\"**\n * A provides a direct and relevant answer to the question about storage.\n\nThroughout the dialogue, the conversation flows logically from one related topic to another (growing -> cooking -> storing). All responses are directly relevant and contribute to a coherent discussion.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for Interactional Fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n* **Pauses:** I will check the gaps between turns.\n * [[00:01],[00:02]]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n * [[00:05],[00:06]]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n * [[00:19],[00:20]]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n * [[00:36],[00:37]]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n * [[00:42],[00:43]]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n * [[01:06],[01:06]]: The transition is immediate.\n * [[01:17],[01:18]]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n * All pauses are short and indicate a natural, flowing conversation. There are no long or awkward silences.\n\n* **Overlaps:** I will check for overlapping speech.\n * [[00:06],[00:14]] A vs. [[00:13],[00:19]] B: There is a one-second overlap where B interrupts A. However, B explicitly manages this interruption by saying, \"Sorry, I just remembered something.\" This is a natural and polite way to handle an interruption in a real conversation and doesn't hinder the flow.\n * The other overlaps ([[00:03],[00:04]], [[00:08],[00:09]], [[00:10],[00:11]], etc.) are all self-overlaps, where a speaker uses fillers or brief affirmations (\"Um\", \"Really\", \"Mm hmm\") while they are speaking. These are features of natural speech and do not represent a fluency problem.\n\nConclusion: The conversation is very fluid. Turn-taking is smooth with no awkward pauses. The one instance of a speaker-on-speaker overlap is handled in a way that is natural for human interaction. The fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/26",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: Could you explain how the River Clyde helped shape transportation and trade over the centuries? I'm especially interested in how it evolved from ancient times to today.\n[[00:10],[00:24]] B: The River Clyde has been vital for trade and transport since Roman times. Back then, it moved soldiers and supplies. Later, medieval traders shipped wool, grain,\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Um.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Sure.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:22],[00:32]] A: What role did the River Clyde play in Glasgow's rise as an industrial city? I'd love to know how it supported shipbuilding and other key industries.\n[[00:33],[00:51]] B: The river made Glasgow a global shipbuilding hub during the Industrial Revolution. Shipyards lined its banks, producing famous vessels. It also powered steel mills and factories. The port handled goods like cotton and tobacco, making Glasgow a major trade center.\n[[00:38],[00:40]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Uh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue based on response relevance and interactional fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n1. **A's first question ([[00:00],[00:10]]):** A asks a broad question about the River Clyde's role in trade and transport through history.\n2. **B's first response ([[00:10],[00:24]]):** B begins to answer chronologically, starting with Roman and medieval times. This is directly relevant to A's question.\n3. **A's second question ([[00:22],[00:32]]):** A narrows the focus to a specific period (Industrial Revolution) and a specific aspect (shipbuilding). This is a logical follow-up, showing engagement and building on the established topic.\n4. **B's second response ([[00:33],[00:51]]):** B provides a detailed and accurate answer to A's specific question about the Industrial Revolution, shipbuilding, and trade.\n\nThe dialogue is highly coherent. The responses are directly relevant to the questions asked, and the topic progresses logically from a general historical overview to a more specific period. There are no inconsistencies or off-topic diversions.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to analyze the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:** There is a 1-second pause between A's second turn ending at [[00:32]] and B's response starting at [[00:33]]. This is a natural, very brief pause and does not harm fluency. There are no prolonged pauses in the dialogue.\n2. **Overlaps:** There is a 2-second overlap from [[00:22]] to [[00:24]]. Speaker A begins their second question while speaker B is still finishing their first answer. While this is an interruption, it's relatively brief and the conversation recovers immediately and smoothly. B does not get flustered and proceeds to answer the new question coherently. This type of eager interruption can be a feature of natural, engaged conversation and is not a significant flaw.\n3. **Fillers/Disfluencies:** Speaker B uses several fillers like \"Um,\" \"Ummm,\" and \"Uh\" within their turns. These are transcribed as separate events but occur within B's main speaking time. These are normal disfluencies in spontaneous speech and contribute to a natural-sounding interaction rather than detracting from fluency.\n\nOverall, the interactional flow is natural. There are no harmful long pauses, and the single instance of overlap is minor and does not disrupt the conversation's progression.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/27",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:06]] A: Sarah, that was an amazing documentary! I had no idea the Amazon rainforest was so important and\n[[00:02],[00:02]] A: Really.\n[[00:03],[00:04]] A: Really.\n[[00:05],[00:16]] B: Sorry to jump in, but isn't it shocking how much of the forest is being destroyed every year? It's like we're losing such a vital part of our planet at an alarming rate.\n[[00:09],[00:09]] B: Cool.\n[[00:10],[00:11]] B: Really.\n[[00:16],[00:30]] A: Yes, and it's all so interconnected. It's amazing how much life is teeming in that one place. And it's all so fragile. We have to do everything we can to protect it before it's too late and we lose something irreplaceable.\n[[00:20],[00:22]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:23],[00:24]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:25],[00:25]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:30],[00:40]] B: Speaking of protection, do you think the current conservation efforts are enough? I mean, it seems like we need a lot more global cooperation to make a real difference.\n[[00:33],[00:34]] B: Uh.\n[[00:35],[00:35]] B: Mm.\n[[00:40],[00:51]] A: Absolutely, we need to be more conscious about our consumption and what we're doing to the environment. Every little bit helps, but you're right—global cooperation is key.\n[[00:46],[00:47]] A: Right.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in this dialogue are highly relevant and coherent. Speaker A introduces the topic of an Amazon rainforest documentary. Speaker B responds directly to this, focusing on a specific, relevant aspect (deforestation). Speaker A then builds on B's point, discussing the fragility of the ecosystem. B continues this thread by questioning the effectiveness of conservation efforts, a logical next step in the conversation. Finally, A agrees and expands on the idea of cooperation and individual responsibility. Each turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining a consistent and developing topic.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There is one extended overlap where B interrupts A at the beginning ([00:05]), but B politely acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which makes the interruption feel natural and enthusiastic rather than rude. The other short overlaps are backchanneling cues (\"Really,\" \"Uh huh,\" \"Yeah, yeah,\" \"Right\"), which indicate active listening and engagement, contributing positively to the conversational flow. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the speakers transition smoothly, demonstrating a natural conversational rhythm.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/28",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: Hello, welcome to my shop! What can I help you\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:03],[00:10]] B: Oh, I'm just browsing. But actually, I do have a question—do you have any recommendations for a birthday gift?\n[[00:05],[00:06]] B: Mm.\n[[00:07],[00:08]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:11],[00:13]] A: Sure! Who's the gift for?\n[[00:15],[00:22]] B: It's for my sister. She's really into gardening, so I was thinking maybe a plant or some gardening tools.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:19],[00:19]] B: Right.\n[[00:22],[00:30]] A: We have a great selection of plants and gardening tools. Let me show you some of our best options, including a few that are perfect for someone who loves gardening.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] A: Right.\n[[00:31],[00:36]] B: Before you show me, do you happen to have any rare plants? My sister loves unique finds.\n[[00:33],[00:34]] B: Really.\n[[00:38],[00:46]] A: Yes, we do have some rare plants! I was actually going to mention that we also offer some special gardening kits that could make a unique gift.\n[[00:40],[00:41]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:43],[00:43]] A: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance and logical consistency.\n\n1. **A's initial turn ([00:00]-[00:04])**: \"Hello, welcome to my shop! What can I help you\". This is a standard and relevant opening for a shopkeeper.\n2. **B's response ([00:03]-[00:10])**: \"Oh, I'm just browsing. But actually, I do have a question—do you have any recommendations for a birthday gift?\". This is a perfectly logical and coherent response. B first states their initial intent and then pivots to a specific request, which is a very natural way to interact in a shop.\n3. **A's response ([00:11]-[00:13])**: \"Sure! Who's the gift for?\". This is a relevant follow-up question to narrow down the gift options.\n4. **B's response ([00:15]-[00:22])**: \"It's for my sister. She's really into gardening...\". B answers the question directly and provides helpful context (her sister's hobby), keeping the topic coherent.\n5. **A's response ([00:22]-[00:30])**: \"We have a great selection of plants and gardening tools...\". A confirms they have relevant items based on B's information, showing they were listening and responding appropriately.\n6. **B's response ([00:31]-[00:36])**: \"Before you show me, do you happen to have any rare plants?\". B introduces a more specific criterion, which is a logical next step in refining the search. The conversation topic remains consistent.\n7. **A's final response ([00:38]-[00:46])**: \"Yes, we do have some rare plants! I was actually going to mention...\". A directly answers B's question and then proactively suggests another related, unique gift idea.\n\nThe entire dialogue flows logically. Each turn is a direct and relevant response to the previous one. The topic is maintained and developed coherently throughout the interaction.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, specifically looking for extended overlaps and long pauses.\n\n* **Overlaps**: The transcript shows several instances of a speaker overlapping with themselves (e.g., A's \"Mhm\" at [00:01] overlaps with A's main turn at [00:00]-[00:04]). These appear to be transcription artifacts where backchannels are logged as separate utterances during the speaker's own turn, rather than true interactional overlaps between two different speakers. There are no instances where speaker A and speaker B are talking over each other for an extended period. The turn-taking is clean.\n\n* **Pauses**: I will analyze the gaps between the end of one speaker's turn and the beginning of the next.\n * B ends at [00:10], A starts at [00:11]. A 1-second pause, which is natural.\n * A ends at [00:13], B starts at [00:15]. A 2-second pause, also a very natural length for thinking.\n * B ends at [00:22], A starts at [00:22]. A smooth, immediate transition.\n * A ends at [00:30], B starts at [00:31]. A 1-second pause, natural.\n * B ends at [00:36], A starts at [00:38]. A 2-second pause, natural.\n\nThere are no prolonged or awkward pauses in the conversation. The timing and turn-taking are smooth and feel like a natural human interaction.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/28",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:07]] A: It's getting warm outside, so I have been riding my bike to work, which takes about 30 minutes. How do you like to\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: Sure.\n[[00:04],[00:04]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:06],[00:16]] B: Sorry, but before you continue, I'm curious—do you find that biking to work every day actually helps with your energy levels throughout the day?\n[[00:09],[00:10]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:16],[00:22]] A: Definitely, it keeps me more alert, and I also run sometimes, which adds to the benefits.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:22],[00:26]] B: What's the point of all that exercise? That's so tiring.\n[[00:23],[00:25]] B: Cool.\n[[00:26],[00:30]] A: It might seem tiring, but it really helps me manage stress and stay focused.\n[[00:28],[00:29]] A: Okay,okay.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue's relevance is excellent. Speaker A introduces the topic of biking to work. Speaker B interrupts, but with a question that is directly related to A's statement (\"do you find that biking to work every day actually helps with your energy levels?\"). A answers the question directly and adds a related point about running. B then responds to this by questioning the point of so much exercise, which is a coherent, if challenging, follow-up. A's final turn directly addresses B's skepticism. The conversation remains focused on the topic of exercise and its effects, with each turn logically following the last. There are no inconsistencies or off-topic diversions.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is also very good. There is a significant interruption at the beginning, where B cuts off A's opening statement. However, B explicitly manages this interruption by saying, \"Sorry, but before you continue, I'm curious...\", which is a polite and natural way to interject in a conversation when highly engaged. This makes the interruption feel less like a disruption and more like a feature of a dynamic, natural conversation. After this initial managed overlap, the turn-taking is seamless, with no pauses between the speakers' turns. The transitions at [00:22] and [00:26] are immediate. The short, self-overlapping utterances from both speakers (\"That's cool,\" \"Okay,okay\") act as backchannels or fillers and do not hinder the flow of the conversation. Overall, the pace is fluid and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/29",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: I can't thank you enough for helping me. I don't know what would've happened if you hadn't come along.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:06],[00:10]] B: It's no problem, I'm just glad I could help. How are you feeling?\n[[00:08],[00:08]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:11],[00:16]] A: Much better, thanks. The doctors and nurses here have been great.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:18],[00:22]] B: That's good to hear. Do you mind if I ask what happened?\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:24],[00:55]] A: It's a long story...I was on my way to meet someone when my car broke down. I didn't have any cell service out there, so I started walking to the nearest town in hopes of finding a payphone. But I must've taken a wrong turn somewhere, because the next thing I knew, I was completely lost in the middle of nowhere. There were no houses or anything around for miles, and it was getting dark fast. I tried to keep going, but eventually I just collapsed from exhaustion. If you hadn't found me when you did, who knows what would've\n[[00:33],[00:34]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] A: Really.\n[[00:38],[00:39]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:55],[00:59]] B: Sorry to interrupt, but did you have any supplies with you, like water or food?\n[[00:56],[00:57]] B: Right.\n[[01:01],[01:09]] A: I had a small bottle of water, but it ran out pretty quickly. So, as I was saying, if you hadn't found me when you did, who knows what would've happened...\n[[01:03],[01:04]] A: Really.\n[[01:05],[01:06]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[01:10],[01:15]] B: Wow, that sounds like quite an ordeal. You're lucky to be alive.\n[[01:17],[01:19]] A: I know. I'm just grateful that you were there to help me.\n[[01:21],[01:25]] B: Like I said, it was no problem. I'm just glad I could help.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation begins with speaker A thanking speaker B, who then appropriately asks about A's well-being. A's response leads to B asking for the story of what happened. A provides a long, coherent narrative explaining the situation. B's interruption is a relevant clarifying question about supplies, which makes sense given A's story of collapsing from exhaustion. A answers the question and then seamlessly returns to their original point. The conversation concludes with appropriate expressions of empathy and gratitude. Each turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining a clear and consistent topic throughout.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the gaps are all within a normal conversational range (1-2 seconds). The overlaps present in the transcript are primarily self-overlaps, where a speaker utters a backchannel-like sound (\"Mm hmm,\" \"Yeah\") over their own speech. These are not disruptive to the flow. There is one polite interruption from speaker B at [00:55], but it is brief, acknowledged, and doesn't impede the conversation. The speakers do not talk over each other in a way that would suggest a struggle for the conversational floor. The turn-taking is smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/29",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:14]] A: That silk dress sounds absolutely gorgeous! Could you explain in more detail how the A-line cut and V-neck work together to create such a flattering shape for different body types? I'm really interested in understanding the design principles behind it.\n[[00:14],[00:20]] B: The A-line shape starts fitted at the waist and then flows outward, which helps balance\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Um.\n[[00:20],[00:28]] A: Wait, could you clarify how the V-neck specifically helps with different bust sizes? I want to make sure it would work well for me since I'm on the smaller side.\n[[00:28],[00:38]] B: Absolutely! The V-neck is great because it adds the illusion of fullness for smaller busts while still being modest enough for larger busts. The angle\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Um.\n[[00:33],[00:34]] B: Really.\n[[00:37],[00:49]] A: That makes sense! Now, since you mentioned it's versatile, what are some easy ways to style this for both casual daytime outings and fancier evening events? I'd love some specific examples.\n[[00:50],[00:59]] B: For daytime, think relaxed but polished—layer it with a cropped cardigan and sandals for brunch. For evenings, swap to\n[[00:52],[00:53]] B: Uh.\n[[00:54],[00:55]] B: Sure.\n[[00:58],[01:06]] A: Could you suggest some color combinations for accessories that would really make the silk pop? I want something that feels fresh but still timeless.\n[[01:07],[01:21]] B: Neutral tones like cream or taupe keep it classic, while bold colors like emerald or ruby make a striking contrast. Metallics like gold or rose gold add just the right amount of shine without overpowering the silk.\n[[01:11],[01:12]] B: Hmm.\n[[01:13],[01:13]] B: Ummm.\n[[01:14],[01:15]] B: Cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue for response relevance and interactional fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n1. **A's first question ([00:00]-[00:14])** is about how the A-line cut and V-neck flatter different body types.\n2. **B's response ([00:14]-[00:20])** starts to explain the A-line shape, which is directly relevant.\n3. **A's interruption ([00:20]-[00:28])** is a clarifying question, drilling down on a specific aspect (V-neck for smaller busts). This is a logical follow-up and maintains topic coherence.\n4. **B's response ([00:28]-[00:38])** directly answers A's specific question about the V-neck.\n5. **A's next question ([00:37]-[00:49])** transitions from fit to styling, which is a natural progression in a conversation about a piece of clothing.\n6. **B's response ([00:50]-[00:59])** begins to answer the styling question with specific examples, which is relevant.\n7. **A's next question ([00:58]-[01:06])** is another specific follow-up on styling, focusing on accessories. This maintains the topic.\n8. **B's final response ([01:07]-[01:21])** provides relevant examples of accessory colors.\n\nThroughout the dialogue, the conversation remains focused on the silk dress. Each turn logically follows the previous one, either by answering a question or asking a relevant follow-up. The responses are consistently on-topic and coherent.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to analyze the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pauses:**\n* There is a 1-second pause between A's turn ending at [00:49] and B's turn beginning at [00:50].\n* There is a 1-second pause between A's turn ending at [01:06] and B's turn beginning at [01:07].\n* Both of these are very brief, natural pauses between turns. There are no prolonged or awkward silences.\n\n**Overlaps:**\n* At [00:20], speaker A interrupts B. The overlap is instantaneous and serves as a natural interjection to ask a clarifying question.\n* From [00:37] to [00:38], there is a 1-second overlap where A begins speaking just as B is finishing. This is a common feature of engaged conversation and is not disruptive.\n* From [00:58] to [00:59], there is another 1-second overlap where A interrupts B to ask a follow-up question.\n* All overlaps are very short (1 second or less) and do not obscure the speakers' meaning. They contribute to a natural, fast-paced conversational flow rather than being harmful interruptions. The various short fillers from speaker B (e.g., \"Um,\" \"Uh,\" \"Sure\") occur within their own turns and are not overlaps.\n\n**Conclusion:** The interactional fluency is excellent. The flow is natural, with no long pauses, and the brief overlaps are characteristic of an engaged and fluid conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/29",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: Could you give me some simple tips on how to better engage with my audience and handle their feedback? I want to make sure I'm responding in the best way possible to comments and critiques.\n[[00:11],[00:23]] B: Absolutely! First, always check your comments regularly so you don't miss anything. Try to reply quickly, even if it's just to say you'll answer soon. When you get feedback, stay\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:22],[00:32]] A: That sounds helpful, but could you explain more about how to respond to negative comments without making things worse? I sometimes struggle with handling criticism in a professional way.\n[[00:33],[00:50]] B: When dealing with negative comments, stay calm and polite. Acknowledge their concern and thank them for sharing. If they're right, admit it and say how you'll improve. If you disagree, explain your view respectfully. Never argue - it's better to take tough conversations private if needed.\n[[00:38],[00:39]] B: Sure.\n[[00:40],[00:41]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:42],[00:43]] B: Sure.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user's dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A begins by asking for tips on audience engagement. Speaker B provides relevant initial advice. Speaker A then asks a logical follow-up question, narrowing the topic to handling negative feedback specifically. Speaker B's final response directly and comprehensively answers this specific question. The conversation maintains a clear and consistent topic, with each turn logically following the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. The pauses between turns are brief (1 second), indicating a natural conversational rhythm. There is a very short, one-second overlap when speaker A begins speaking just before speaker B finishes their turn [[00:22],[00:23]]. This brief overlap is common in natural conversation and does not disrupt the flow. The other interruptions are single-word utterances from speaker B (\"Mhm\", \"Sure\") during their own speaking turn. These appear to be transcription errors, likely backchanneling from speaker A that was misattributed. Even if taken as self-interruptions, they are extremely brief and do not hinder the interaction. There are no prolonged, disruptive overlaps or long pauses.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/30",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: I'm sorry, Mom. I didn't mean to make a mess.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Really.\n[[00:05],[00:10]] B: You're always making messes! You're so care\n[[00:07],[00:08]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:09],[00:12]] A: I know, I'm really sorry. I'll clean it up right away.\n[[00:10],[00:10]] A: Right.\n[[00:14],[00:18]] B: You'd better! And next time, be more careful!\n[[00:16],[00:16]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:19],[00:21]] A: I will, Mom. I'm sorry.\n[[00:22],[00:25]] B: Just be more careful next time, okay?\n[[00:26],[00:28]] A: I will, Mom. I promise.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains perfect response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A begins by apologizing for a mess. Speaker B's response is a direct, albeit emotional, reaction to the apology, expressing frustration. Speaker A then responds appropriately by reinforcing the apology and offering to clean up the mess. The conversation continues in this logical, cause-and-effect manner, with each turn being a direct and coherent response to the previous one. The topic remains focused on the mess, the apology, and the need for future care.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The pauses between turns are all very short, typically 1 to 2 seconds (e.g., [[00:03],[00:05]], [[00:12],[00:14]]), which is characteristic of a natural and engaged conversation. There is a brief, one-second overlap between speaker B and speaker A from [00:09] to [00:10]. This type of short overlap is common in natural speech, especially during an emotional exchange, and does not hinder communication. Other instances of overlapping speech are self-interruptions (e.g., A at [00:01], B at [00:07]), which are also natural. There are no extended, disruptive overlaps or long, awkward pauses.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/30",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: That description of the ice cream shop was wonderful! Could you tell me more about the different flavors they serve there? I'd love to know what unique options they have that might reflect the beach town's character.\n[[00:11],[00:22]] B: The shop offers classic flavors like vanilla and chocolate, but also special local creations. Their signature is sea salt caramel swirl, inspired\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Really.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Right.\n[[00:21],[00:30]] A: The flavors sound delicious! Could you describe how Katie and Jack first interact when he comes into the shop? What makes their meeting special compared to other customers?\n[[00:32],[00:52]] B: When Jack first walks in, he's clearly new in town with his sun-bleached hair and surfboard under his arm. Unlike other customers who just order quickly, he asks Katie for recommendations. Their conversation about flavors turns into laughing about bad summer jobs, and time seems to slow down as they connect.\n[[00:38],[00:39]] B: Really.\n[[00:40],[00:41]] B: Cool.\n[[00:42],[00:43]] B: Sure.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B's first response directly answers speaker A's question about the ice cream shop's unique flavors, providing a specific example (\"sea salt caramel swirl\") that fits the \"beach town's character.\" Speaker B's second response is also perfectly relevant, describing the initial interaction between the characters Katie and Jack in detail, as requested by speaker A. The conversation progresses logically from the setting's details to the characters' interaction, maintaining topic coherence throughout.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The pauses between turns are brief and natural. For instance, there is a one-second pause between A's first turn ending at [00:10] and B's response beginning at [00:11], and a two-second pause between A's second turn ending at [00:30] and B's response beginning at [00:32]. There is a minor, non-disruptive overlap where A begins speaking at [00:21] while B is finishing their turn at [00:22], which is common in natural conversation. The other short utterances from speaker B (e.g., \"Really,\" \"Right\") overlap with their own main speech, which appears to be a transcription artifact rather than a harmful interactional overlap between the two speakers. Overall, the turn-taking is smooth and fluid.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/30",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:07]] A: Hey, Sarah. I'm struggling again. I really want to succeed this time, but I feel like my plans are always falling\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:04],[00:04]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:07],[00:16]] B: Sorry to cut in, but when you say your plans are falling through, do you mean they aren't getting off the ground at all, or do they start well and then lose momentum?\n[[00:09],[00:10]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:16],[00:30]] A: They start well, but then things just don't seem to work out. I've tried starting my own business, but it always ends up failing. I've tried different marketing strategies and products, but nothing seems to stick, no matter how much effort I put in.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:22],[00:23]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:24],[00:25]] A: Cool.\n[[00:30],[00:37]] B: Do you think it could be an issue with the target market? Maybe the audience you're aiming for isn't the right fit for what you're offering?\n[[00:32],[00:33]] B: Uh.\n[[00:34],[00:35]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:38],[00:48]] A: That's a good point. I haven't really considered that deeply. I was going to mention that nothing seems to work out no matter what I try, but maybe I should focus more on understanding my audience better.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:49],[00:58]] B: Exactly. Sometimes it's not about the product or strategy, but about who you're trying to reach. Maybe refining that could make all the difference.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A introduces a problem (failing business plans). Speaker B asks a relevant clarifying question to better understand the problem's nature. Speaker A provides a detailed answer, and Speaker B then offers a logical and constructive suggestion (investigating the target market). Speaker A acknowledges this as a valuable point they hadn't considered. Each turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining a coherent and focused conversation on solving Speaker A's problem.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good and mirrors natural conversation. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns. While there is an overlap at the beginning ([00:07]-[00:16] B overlaps with [00:00]-[00:07] A), Speaker B explicitly acknowledges it (\"Sorry to cut in\") and the purpose is to seek clarification, which is a common and acceptable conversational move. The other short overlaps are backchannels (\"Mhm,\" \"Yeah\") that indicate active listening and engagement, which contributes positively to the flow rather than disrupting it.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/31",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:07]] A: What are some practical steps the Viking News could take right away to start improving audience engagement and getting more reader feedback?\n[[00:08],[00:19]] B: Here are some simple but effective steps to boost engagement quickly. First, set up a weekly poll on social media about local topics readers care\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: Right.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Uh.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Really.\n[[00:19],[00:28]] A: How can the Viking News team ensure they're covering topics that truly interest their readers while still maintaining journalistic standards?\n[[00:29],[00:52]] B: The best approach is to combine reader input with professional judgment. Regularly review survey results and social media comments to spot trending topics. Then assign reporters to investigate these subjects while fact-checking thoroughly. Also consider forming a small reader advisory panel that meets monthly to discuss story ideas. This balances audience interests with quality reporting.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] B: Um.\n[[00:38],[00:39]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:40],[00:41]] B: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B's first response directly addresses Speaker A's question by providing a concrete, actionable step (\"set up a weekly poll on social media\"). Speaker A's follow-up question is a logical extension of the initial topic, moving from \"how to get feedback\" to \"how to use that feedback responsibly.\" Speaker B's second response is again highly relevant, offering a balanced strategy that combines reader input with professional journalistic practices. The conversation is coherent, on-topic, and logically structured.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no prolonged pauses between turns; the one-second gaps between speakers are natural and indicate normal turn-taking. The transcript notes several short utterances from speaker B (\"Right,\" \"Uh,\" \"Really\") during their own longer speaking turns. These are not disruptive overlaps with speaker A but rather self-contained filler words or affirmations, which are a normal part of speech. There are no instances of speakers talking over each other in a way that disrupts the flow of conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/31",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: I had some delicious apples earlier. I really should try some\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:03],[00:11]] B: Speaking of fruits, have you ever tried those exotic ones like dragon fruit or starfruit? They're quite unique in flavor.\n[[00:06],[00:07]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:08],[00:08]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:11],[00:18]] A: I haven't tried those yet, but I was actually about to mention pears. They're on my list to try next.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] A: Right.\n[[00:18],[00:25]] B: Pears are great, but if you're into trying new things, you might want to explore some of the more unusual fruits too.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] B: I see.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe conversation maintains a clear and logical flow. Speaker A introduces the topic of fruits by mentioning apples. Speaker B responds relevantly by expanding the topic to exotic fruits. Speaker A acknowledges this but brings the conversation to another common fruit, pears. Speaker B then acknowledges A's point about pears while gently reintroducing the idea of trying more unusual fruits. Each turn is a direct and coherent response to the previous one, building the conversation logically.\n\n\n\nThe interaction is very fluid. There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns; the transitions are immediate and natural. There is a brief, one-second overlap at the beginning ([00:03]-[00:04]) as speaker B begins talking just as speaker A is finishing. This type of short overlap is common in natural conversation and does not disrupt the flow. All other annotated sounds are brief, internal fillers or backchannels (e.g., \"Mhm,\" \"Yeah, yeah,\" \"I see\") which do not constitute harmful overlapping turns. The overall fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/32",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:12]] A: That sounds fascinating! Could you break down the typical timeline for me, from when the satellite arrives near the ISS until it's finally deployed? I'm curious about each major step and how long they usually take.\n[[00:12],[00:27]] B: Sure! First, the satellite approaches the ISS over several hours. The robotic arm then takes about an hour to capture it. After that, positioning for deployment takes another hour or\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: I see.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:27],[00:37]] A: That's quite a precise operation! What are the main challenges the astronauts face during this process, and how do they prepare for potential problems that might come up during deployment?\n[[00:38],[01:01]] B: The biggest challenges are maintaining exact positioning and dealing with unexpected movements. Astronauts train extensively on simulators and practice emergency procedures. They also have backup plans for issues like communication loss or mechanical failures with the robotic arm. Safety is always the top priority.\n[[00:45],[00:45]] B: I see.\n[[00:46],[00:47]] B: Sure.\n[[00:48],[00:50]] B: That's cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the provided dialogue transcript.\n\n**Analysis of Response Relevance:**\n1. **A's first turn ([00:00]-[00:12]):** A asks a clear and specific question about the timeline for satellite deployment from the ISS.\n2. **B's first turn ([00:12]-[00:27]):** B provides a direct and relevant answer, breaking down the timeline into steps (approach, capture, positioning) and giving approximate durations for each. This response is perfectly coherent and logical.\n3. **A's second turn ([00:27]-[00:37]):** A acknowledges B's answer and asks a relevant follow-up question about the challenges astronauts face and how they prepare for them. This maintains the topic and builds on the previous exchange.\n4. **B's second turn ([00:38]-[01:01]):** B directly addresses A's question, listing challenges (positioning, unexpected movements) and preparation methods (simulators, emergency procedures, backup plans). The response is logical, relevant, and consistent with the topic.\n\nThe dialogue flows logically, with each turn directly addressing or following up on the previous one. The topic is maintained consistently throughout the interaction. Therefore, the response relevance is excellent.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Analysis of Pauses:**\n- Between A's first turn ending at [00:12] and B's first turn starting at [00:12], there is no pause.\n- Between B's first turn ending at [00:27] and A's second turn starting at [00:27], there is no pause.\n- Between A's second turn ending at [00:37] and B's second turn starting at [00:38], there is a 1-second pause. This is a natural and acceptable pause in conversation and is not considered harmful.\n\nThere are no long or awkward pauses between speaker turns.\n\n**Analysis of Overlaps:**\n- The utterances `[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Hmm.`, `[[00:19],[00:20]] B: I see.`, and `[[00:21],[00:22]] B: Uh huh.` occur *during* B's own turn. These are not overlaps between speaker A and B, but rather self-interruptions or filler words from speaker B. They are very brief and do not disrupt the flow of B's main point.\n- Similarly, the utterances `[[00:45],[00:45]] B: I see.`, `[[00:46],[00:47]] B: Sure.`, and `[[00:48],[00:50]] B: That's cool.` also occur during B's own speaking turn. These are not interactional overlaps with speaker A.\n\nThere are no extended, harmful overlaps where both speakers are talking over each other. The turn-taking is smooth and orderly. Therefore, the interactional fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/32",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:08]] A: That sounds great, but I'm curious about how we can get younger generations involved in cultural preservation since they're often so busy with technology?\n[[00:08],[00:21]] B: You're right, that's an important challenge. We could create fun digital experiences like augmented reality tours of historic sites. Maybe organize social media contests where teens\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Really.\n[[00:16],[00:16]] B: Sure.\n[[00:20],[00:29]] A: Actually, could you explain more about those augmented reality tours? I've heard about them but don't really understand how they'd work for historic sites in our town?\n[[00:29],[00:41]] B: Sure! Imagine pointing your phone at an old building and seeing how it looked 100 years ago pop up on screen. We could add interactive stories about people who lived\n[[00:33],[00:33]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:34],[00:35]] B: Uh.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:40],[00:48]] A: That sounds amazing, but wouldn't that require a lot of technical expertise and funding that our small town might not have available right now?\n[[00:48],[00:58]] B: Good point - we could start small with just a few key locations. Many free apps make AR creation easier now. We might find local tech\n[[00:51],[00:52]] B: Cool.\n[[00:53],[00:54]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:58],[01:08]] A: While we're talking about funding, what are some creative ways to raise money for preservation projects that don't rely on government grants or big donations?\n[[01:08],[01:21]] B: Crowdfunding campaigns work well when people feel personally connected. We could sell merchandise featuring historic photos or host themed dinners in restored\n[[01:12],[01:13]] B: Really.\n[[01:13],[01:14]] B: Uh.\n[[01:20],[01:29]] A: Speaking of awareness, how can we convince people who don't care about history that preserving old buildings actually benefits everyone in the community today?\n[[01:30],[01:48]] B: We should focus on practical benefits - preserved areas often increase property values and attract tourists. Many old buildings are actually more energy efficient than new ones. Plus, they give neighborhoods unique character that makes people proud to live there. It's about quality of life, not just history.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building upon the conversation coherently. Speaker A starts with a question about engaging youth in cultural preservation. Speaker B provides relevant suggestions (AR tours, social media). A then asks for a clarification on AR tours, which B provides. The conversation then naturally progresses to related practical concerns like funding and public perception. Every response directly addresses the question or point raised in the preceding turn, maintaining a clear and consistent focus on the central theme of cultural preservation. There are no instances of irrelevant or illogical responses.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, disruptive pauses between turns; the speakers transition smoothly and quickly. For example, there's a seamless handoff from A to B at [00:08] and again at [00:29]. The brief one-second pause between A's turn ending at [01:29] and B's starting at [01:30] is natural and does not impede the flow. The overlaps noted in the transcript are either very brief, one-second overlaps at the transition of turns (e.g., A starting at [01:20] as B finishes at [01:21]), which is common in natural speech, or they are extremely short, non-disruptive filler words (\"Mhm,\" \"Uh,\" \"Really\") within a single speaker's turn. These do not hinder communication and contribute to a natural-sounding dialogue.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/32",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Hi there! How are you doing today?\n[[00:03],[00:05]] B: I'm doing good, thank you. How are you?\n[[00:06],[00:12]] A: Oh, I'm just fabulous! I love making children smile, it makes me so\n[[00:09],[00:10]] A: Uh.\n[[00:11],[00:17]] B: Sorry to jump in, but how do you usually make children smile? Do you have any special activities or routines?\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Uh.\n[[00:19],[00:34]] A: I usually play games with them, tell them stories, or sometimes just listen to them. It's really nice of you to ask. I just love making people happy. Especially children, they're so innocent and deserve all the love and attention we can give them.\n[[00:24],[00:25]] A: Right.\n[[00:26],[00:27]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:28],[00:29]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:35],[00:41]] B: Absolutely, children bring so much joy. Do you have any favorite stories you like to tell them?\n[[00:37],[00:38]] B: Sure.\n[[00:42],[00:46]] A: Yes, I do have a few favorites. That's very sweet of you.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] A: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B's questions are direct and logical follow-ups to Speaker A's statements. For instance, when A mentions they love making children smile, B appropriately asks *how* they do it. When A mentions telling stories, B follows up by asking about their favorite stories. Speaker A's answers are directly relevant to the questions asked, providing specific examples (playing games, telling stories) and elaborating on their feelings, which keeps the conversation rich and coherent. The topic of making children happy is maintained consistently throughout the interaction.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long, disruptive pauses between turns; the pauses that exist (e.g., between [00:01] and [00:03]) are natural and typical for a conversation. There is one notable overlap from [00:11] to [00:12], where B begins speaking while A is still finishing their sentence. However, B handles this gracefully by explicitly apologizing (\"Sorry to jump in\"), which acknowledges the interruption and maintains a polite and smooth conversational flow. The other brief, single-word overlaps are intra-speaker fillers (\"Sure,\" \"Really\") and do not disrupt the interaction. Overall, the flow is natural and smooth.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/33",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: I'm interested in learning more about point-and-click puzzle games. Could you tell me what makes Machinarium and The Room stand out from other similar games? I'd like to know why they might be good choices for me.\n[[00:12],[00:20]] B: Machinarium stands out because of its beautiful hand-drawn art style and charming robot\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Mm.\n[[00:17],[00:17]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:19],[00:31]] A: That sounds really interesting! Could you explain what kind of puzzles I might encounter in these games and how challenging they are for beginners? I don't want anything too frustrating right away.\n[[00:33],[00:55]] B: In Machinarium, you'll solve logic puzzles and mini-games that gradually get harder. The Room starts with simpler box puzzles that teach you the mechanics before introducing more complex challenges. Both games are beginner-friendly but still satisfying for puzzle fans. They give hints when needed, so you won't get stuck too long.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] B: Mm.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Mm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user asks for a detailed comparison of two games, and the assistant provides relevant information. In the first turn, the assistant begins to describe 'Machinarium', directly addressing the user's question. The user then follows up with a more specific question about puzzle types and difficulty, which shows they are engaged and the topic is coherent. The assistant's final response comprehensively answers this second question, describing the puzzle progression for both games and addressing the user's concern about frustration by mentioning the beginner-friendly nature and hint systems. The responses are logically consistent and stay on topic throughout the interaction.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There is a very short, natural pause of one second between the first and second turns ([[00:11]] to [[00:12]]). There is another brief and perfectly acceptable two-second pause between the third and fourth turns ([[00:31]] to [[00:33]]), allowing the assistant time to formulate a detailed response. The overlaps present are minor backchanneling noises from speaker B (\"Mm,\" \"Mm hmm\") over their own speech, which do not disrupt the flow. There are no long, awkward pauses or disruptive extended overlaps. The conversation feels natural and smooth.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/33",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: Hey, I was wondering if I could talk to you about something.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:03],[00:04]] B: Of course, what's up?\n[[00:05],[00:09]] A: Well, I'm really struggling in math right now and I was hoping for some help.\n[[00:06],[00:08]] A: Um.\n[[00:09],[00:15]] B: Absolutely. Let's take a look at your most recent test together and see where you're having\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Uh.\n[[00:15],[00:24]] A: Actually, before we dive into the test, I just remembered that I have a project due next week. Could we maybe focus on the project first?\n[[00:17],[00:18]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] A: Sure.\n[[00:24],[00:33]] B: Sure, we can definitely start with the project. But I noticed you mentioned struggling with math concepts like area and perimeter. Do you want to go over those again?\n[[00:27],[00:28]] B: Uh.\n[[00:29],[00:29]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:33],[00:35]] A: Yeah, that would be great. Thanks.\n[[00:36],[00:44]] B: No problem Gianella. Math can be tricky sometimes, but I think with some practice and guidance, you'll be able to grasp it better.\n[[00:38],[00:39]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:40],[00:41]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:45],[00:51]] A: I just want to add that I really appreciate your help. It's been really stressful trying to keep up with everything.\n[[00:51],[00:57]] B: Of course, I'm happy to help. As I was saying, I know you'll get it with a little extra effort.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue for response relevance and interactional fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n- A initiates the conversation by asking for help with math. B responds positively and suggests a starting point (looking at a test). This is a relevant and helpful response.\n- A then pivots, asking to work on a project first due to its urgency. This is a logical and coherent change in direction.\n- B agrees to the change but also thoughtfully brings the conversation back to the core math concepts A mentioned struggling with, showing they were listening and are still focused on the initial problem. This is a highly relevant and supportive move.\n- The rest of the conversation involves A expressing gratitude and B offering encouragement. All turns are logically connected and stay within the established context of a tutoring/help session.\n- The dialogue is consistently coherent and logically structured.\n\n**Conclusion:** The responses are highly relevant and the topic progression is logical and natural.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pause Analysis:**\n- [00:04] to [00:05]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n- [00:35] to [00:36]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n- [00:44] to [00:45]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n- All other speaker transitions have no significant pause. There are no long, awkward silences that disrupt the conversational flow.\n\n**Overlap Analysis:**\n- The transcript shows several \"overlaps,\" such as at [00:01], [00:06], [00:11], etc.\n- However, upon closer inspection, all of these overlaps are instances of a speaker talking over *themselves* (e.g., Speaker A saying \"Mm hmm\" while also saying their main line). These are not disruptive inter-speaker overlaps but rather filler words or hesitations that are part of a single speaker's turn.\n- There are no instances where Speaker A and Speaker B are talking over each other in a way that harms the conversation. The turn-taking is smooth and orderly.\n\n**Conclusion:** The interactional fluency is excellent. There are no disruptive pauses or overlaps between the speakers.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/34",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:09]] A: Could you tell me more about how Catholics view Mary and what makes her so special in their faith? I'm curious about her role beyond just being Jesus' mother.\n[[00:10],[00:17]] B: Catholics see Mary as uniquely holy and chosen by God. She's called the Mother of God because\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Mm.\n[[00:16],[00:27]] A: That's fascinating! Since Mary is so important, are there specific days when Catholics celebrate her with special events or traditions? I'd love to know more about these celebrations.\n[[00:28],[00:48]] B: Yes, there are several major feast days for Mary. On August 15th, Catholics celebrate the Assumption, when Mary was taken body and soul into heaven. December 8th is the Immaculate Conception, marking Mary's own sinless birth. Many churches hold special Masses and processions on these days to honor her.\n[[00:34],[00:35]] B: Really.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] B: I see.\n[[00:37],[00:39]] B: Uh huh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and coherence of the dialogue.\n\n1. **A's first turn ([[00:00],[00:09]]):** A asks a clear, specific question about the Catholic view of Mary.\n2. **B's first turn ([[00:10],[00:17]]):** B begins to answer the question directly, explaining Mary's status as \"uniquely holy\" and \"Mother of God.\" This is a relevant start to the explanation.\n3. **A's second turn ([[00:16],[00:27]]):** A builds logically on the topic, asking a follow-up question about specific celebrations related to Mary. This shows A is engaged and the topic is coherent.\n4. **B's second turn ([[00:28],[00:48]]):** B provides a detailed and directly relevant answer to A's second question, listing specific feast days (Assumption, Immaculate Conception) and associated traditions.\n\nThe conversation flows logically from a general question to a more specific one. All responses are on-topic and directly address the preceding turn. The dialogue is thematically coherent and logically consistent. The interjections by B within B's own turns (\"Mm,\" \"Really,\" \"I see,\" \"Uh huh\") are clearly transcription errors, as one does not typically provide backchanneling for oneself. If we assume these were actually from speaker A, they would indicate active listening, further strengthening the interaction's coherence. Based on the primary content of the turns, the relevance is excellent.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, focusing on pauses and overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:**\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's first turn and B's first turn ([[00:09],[00:10]]).\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's second turn and B's second turn ([[00:27],[00:28]]).\n * These short pauses are completely natural and indicate smooth turn-taking. There are no prolonged, awkward silences.\n\n2. **Overlaps:**\n * There is a brief, 1-second overlap where A's second turn ([[00:16],[00:27]]) begins just as B's first turn ([[00:10],[00:17]]) is ending. This type of minor overlap is common in natural, enthusiastic conversation and is not disruptive.\n * The other listed turns for B ([[00:13],[00:14]], [[00:34],[00:35]], etc.) are instances of B speaking during B's own turn. This is a transcription error, as these are backchannel cues (\"Mm,\" \"Really,\" \"I see\") that the listener (A) would make. Assuming these were spoken by A, they would represent good conversational flow and active listening, not a fluency problem.\n\nSince there are no disruptive overlaps or long pauses, and the turn-taking is swift and natural, the interactional fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/34",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: What do you like to cook?\n[[00:01],[00:05]] B: I'd really like to learn to cook so I can make some awesome\n[[00:02],[00:03]] B: Cool.\n[[00:04],[00:11]] A: Sorry to interrupt, but when you say \"awesome things,\" are you thinking more about desserts or main courses?\n[[00:07],[00:08]] A: Cool.\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: Maybe main courses.\n[[00:13],[00:18]] A: Me too! Do you have any good recipes to share?\n[[00:15],[00:16]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:18],[00:27]] B: Hm, I really don't know much about cooking, but I want to learn. Are you into baking or do you prefer savory dishes that are quick to make on weeknights?\n[[00:21],[00:22]] B: Cool.\n[[00:23],[00:24]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:27],[00:34]] A: Baking definitely intrigues me, but I'm also curious about savory dishes. Do you have a preference?\n[[00:29],[00:31]] A: Right.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue based on Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n1. A opens with a question: \"What do you like to cook?\"\n2. B responds by stating they want to *learn* to cook. This is a relevant and logical answer, addressing the topic of cooking from their perspective.\n3. A seeks clarification on B's statement (\"awesome things\"), asking about desserts vs. main courses. This is a relevant follow-up that keeps the conversation focused.\n4. B answers directly: \"Maybe main courses.\"\n5. A shares a similar interest and asks for recipes. This is thematically coherent.\n6. B clarifies they don't have recipes because they are still learning, and then turns the question back to A (\"Are you into baking or...savory dishes?\"). This is an excellent conversational move, addressing A's question and keeping the dialogue going.\n7. A answers B's question and asks for B's preference. This is a reciprocal and relevant response.\n\nThe conversation is logically consistent and maintains topic coherence throughout. Each speaker's turn is a direct and relevant response to the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue based on Interactional Fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Fluency Analysis:**\n1. **Pauses:** There is a one-second pause between A's turn ending at [00:11] and B's turn beginning at [00:12]. This is a natural, brief pause for thought and does not harm the interactional flow. There are no other significant or awkwardly long pauses.\n2. **Overlaps:** There is a significant overlap between [00:04] and [00:05] where A interrupts B. However, A immediately and politely acknowledges this by saying, \"Sorry to interrupt...\". This is a common conversational repair strategy used to seek clarification. By apologizing, A mitigates the harm of the interruption, making it a feature of a dynamic, natural conversation rather than a flaw. Other minor overlaps (e.g., [00:15]-[00:16] \"Uh huh\", [00:29]-[00:31] \"Right\") function as backchannels, indicating active listening and engagement. These brief, supportive overlaps are characteristic of natural, fluent dialogue and do not disrupt the flow.\n\nOverall, the interaction feels natural and engaged. The interruption is handled politely, and the lack of long pauses contributes to a smooth conversational rhythm.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/34",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:12]] A: That first book recommendation about cooking basics sounds great, but could you explain in more detail why \"Salt, Fat, Acid, Heat\" is considered such a good starting point for complete kitchen beginners?\n[[00:13],[00:18]] B: What makes it perfect for beginners is how it simplifies everything.\n[[00:15],[00:15]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:17],[00:27]] A: Wait, before you go on, could you tell me if the book includes pictures or diagrams to help explain these concepts visually for people who learn better that way?\n[[00:27],[00:37]] B: Absolutely! It's packed with colorful illustrations and helpful diagrams that make the concepts super clear. The visual approach really helps\n[[00:30],[00:31]] B: Um.\n[[00:32],[00:33]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:36],[00:48]] A: That sounds really helpful, but I'm wondering if you could recommend something even more basic for people who might find cooking intimidating - maybe with very simple recipes using just a few ingredients?\n[[00:49],[01:00]] B: For the simplest possible start, Jamie Oliver's \"5 Ingredients\" is perfect. Each recipe uses only five main items with clear\n[[00:52],[00:53]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:54],[00:55]] B: Right.\n[[00:56],[00:56]] B: Right.\n[[00:59],[01:09]] A: That sounds exactly what I need, but could you tell me more about what kinds of recipes are included - are they mostly everyday meals that a beginner could realistically make after work?\n[[01:10],[01:26]] B: Yes, they're all practical weeknight meals - things like pasta dishes, simple stir-fries, and roasted chicken. The recipes focus on quick preparation with minimal cleanup, perfect for busy beginners who want tasty results without spending hours in the kitchen.\n[[01:15],[01:16]] B: Uh huh.\n[[01:16],[01:17]] B: Really.\n[[01:18],[01:19]] B: That's cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B consistently provides direct and informative answers to Speaker A's questions. For example, when A asks for a more basic book recommendation with simple recipes ([00:36]-[00:48]), B appropriately suggests \"Jamie Oliver's '5 Ingredients'\" ([00:49]-[01:00]). Subsequently, when A asks for details about the types of recipes in that book ([00:59]-[01:09]), B gives a thorough and relevant answer, confirming they are practical weeknight meals and providing examples ([01:10]-[01:26]). The conversation progresses logically, with each turn building coherently on the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. The pauses between turns are consistently short and natural, typically around one second (e.g., [00:12]-[00:13]). There are a few instances of minor overlap, such as between [00:17]-[00:18] where A interrupts B. However, this is handled naturally (\"Wait, before you go on...\") and is characteristic of a real, dynamic conversation rather than a flaw. The overlaps are brief and do not disrupt the flow or cause information to be lost. There are no extended overlaps or awkwardly long pauses, resulting in a smooth and natural-sounding dialogue.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/35",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:08]] A: What romantic but upbeat songs would you recommend for this video? I need something emotional that matches the energy of their love story.\n[[00:08],[00:16]] B: For the video, use warm colors like gold and pink for happy moments. Try smooth tracking\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: Uh.\n[[00:13],[00:13]] B: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user's response is relevant to the broader topic of creating a video, which the speaker initiated. Although the user does not directly answer the question about song recommendations, they offer related advice on the visual aspects of the video (\"use warm colors like gold and pink,\" \"Try smooth tracking\"). This advice is thematically connected to the speaker's goal of creating an \"emotional\" video that captures a \"love story.\" The response maintains topic coherence by staying within the context of video production.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no awkward pauses or delays between turns. The user begins their response at the exact moment the speaker finishes their question ([00:08]), demonstrating a smooth and natural conversational flow. There are no extended overlaps; the minor interjections from the user at [00:11] and [00:13] are self-contained within their own speaking turn and do not interrupt the other speaker.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 5
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/36",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: Kesha, I noticed that you have lice in your hair. Have you been scratching your head a lot lately?\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:05],[00:12]] B: Yes, I have. It's been driving me crazy. I've tried everything to get rid of them, but nothing seems to\n[[00:08],[00:10]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:11],[00:14]] A: Have you tried using a lice comb or a special shampoo?\n[[00:12],[00:13]] A: Really.\n[[00:15],[00:20]] B: I haven't tried a lice comb yet, but I've used some shampoos. They didn't seem to help much.\n[[00:17],[00:17]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:20],[00:29]] A: Well, lice are actually pretty common. A lot of people get them at some point in their lives. But don't worry, there are ways to get rid of them.\n[[00:24],[00:24]] A: Really.\n[[00:29],[00:33]] B: Really? What can I do? I'll try anything at this point.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:34],[00:45]] A: There are a few things you can try. You can use a lice comb to comb them out, or you can use a special shampoo. You should also clean your environment thoroughly, like vacuuming carpets and furniture.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] A: Really.\n[[00:46],[00:51]] B: Should I be concerned about spreading it to others? Like, should I avoid close contact with people?\n[[00:48],[00:49]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:51],[00:59]] A: Yes, it's a good idea to avoid close contact until you've treated it. Also, you should wash all of your bedding and clothes in hot water.\n[[00:53],[00:54]] A: I see.\n[[00:55],[00:56]] A: I see.\n[[00:59],[01:03]] B: Alright, I'll try those things. Thanks for the advice, Lucus.\n[[01:03],[01:06]] A: No problem. Let me know if you need any more help.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance.\n1. A initiates the conversation by mentioning they've noticed lice in B's hair and asks if B has been scratching. This is a direct opening.\n2. B confirms the scratching and expresses frustration, which is a perfectly relevant response.\n3. A then suggests specific treatments (comb, shampoo), which logically follows B's confirmation of the problem.\n4. B responds directly to A's suggestions, stating they've tried shampoos without success. This maintains topic coherence.\n5. A offers reassurance and promises solutions, a relevant and empathetic turn.\n6. B asks for the solutions, a direct and logical follow-up.\n7. A provides a list of solutions, directly answering B's question.\n8. B asks a new, but highly relevant, question about contagion.\n9. A answers the contagion question and adds more relevant advice about cleaning.\n10. B acknowledges the advice and thanks A, moving to close the conversation.\n11. A offers a polite closing.\n\nThe dialogue is consistently on-topic. Each turn logically follows the previous one. The conversation progresses from identifying the problem to discussing solutions and related concerns. There are no logical inconsistencies or off-topic tangents. The response relevance is excellent.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pauses:**\n- [00:04] -> [00:05]: 1-second pause. This is a normal turn-taking gap.\n- [00:14] -> [00:15]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n- There are no other significant pauses between turns. The conversation flows smoothly without any awkward or prolonged silences.\n\n**Overlaps:**\n- The transcript shows numerous short, self-overlapping utterances (e.g., A says \"Ummm\" while speaking, B says \"Yeah, yeah\" while speaking). These are not inter-speaker overlaps but rather filler words or backchannels within a single speaker's turn, which is natural.\n- [00:11]-[00:12]: Speaker A starts their turn (\"Have you tried...\") one second before Speaker B finishes their turn (\"...nothing seems to\"). This is a very brief, one-second overlap. In a natural, engaged conversation, such minor overlaps are common and do not hinder communication. They are not extended or disruptive.\n\n**Conclusion:** There are no prolonged pauses. The overlaps are either self-overlaps (natural fillers) or very brief and non-disruptive. The interactional fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/36",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: I would like to go to an Indian restaurant in the north.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Cool.\n[[00:04],[00:09]] B: I found 2 that matches your criteria. Would you prefer a moderate or cheap pricing?\n[[00:06],[00:07]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:10],[00:13]] A: How about the moderate one? May I have their address, please?\n[[00:11],[00:12]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:14],[00:23]] B: Yes, The Nirala's address is 7 Milton Road Chesterton and their postcode is cb41uy. Is there anything else I can\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:22],[00:29]] A: Actually, I just realized I forgot to ask about their opening hours. Could you provide that information as well?\n[[00:25],[00:26]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:29],[00:35]] B: Sure, The Nirala is open from 12 PM to 10 PM every day. Is there anything else I can help you with today?\n[[00:31],[00:33]] B: Really.\n[[00:35],[00:38]] A: No, that is all, thank you. Have a nice day.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] A: Um.\n[[00:39],[00:45]] B: So glad we could help you out. Thanks for using the Cambridge TownInfo centre, and have a glorious day!\n[[00:41],[00:42]] B: Mhm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user's responses are consistently relevant and logical throughout the dialogue. The conversation starts with a clear request for an Indian restaurant. The agent provides relevant options and asks a clarifying question about price. The user answers and asks for the address, which the agent provides correctly. The user's follow-up question about opening hours is also a logical next step, and the agent answers it directly. The dialogue concludes naturally. There are no instances of topic deviation, illogical responses, or inconsistencies.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth and natural. There are no long, awkward pauses between speaker turns; the longest gap is one second, which is perfectly normal in conversation. There is a very brief, one-second overlap between [00:22] and [00:23] where speaker A begins their next question just before speaker B finishes their sentence. This type of minor interruption is common in natural speech and does not disrupt the flow of the conversation. There are no extended, problematic overlaps. The numerous short utterances like \"Yeah, yeah\" or \"Uh huh\" are self-overlaps within a single speaker's turn and act as natural fillers, not as interruptions.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/37",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hey, Abigael. I brought you a little something.\n[[00:04],[00:05]] B: What is it?\n[[00:05],[00:08]] A: It's a plant. I thought it might brighten up your room a bit.\n[[00:06],[00:07]] A: Um.\n[[00:10],[00:15]] B: Thank you, Giles. That was really thoughtful of you. How are you doing?\n[[00:11],[00:13]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:16],[00:21]] A: I'm doing alright. Just wanted to come and check on you and see how you're holding up.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:23],[00:28]] B: Yeah, I'm hanging in there. The days are starting to blend together a bit, but I'm managing. How's work been?\n[[00:24],[00:25]] B: Right.\n[[00:29],[00:36]] A: Work has been busy, as always. But I can't complain too much, because at least I have a job that I can go to\n[[00:32],[00:34]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:35],[00:39]] B: Do you think the workload is affecting your health? You seem a bit tired lately.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:40],[00:51]] A: It has been a bit draining, but I'm managing. Have you seen Alex lately? We haven't talked in a while and I was just wondering how he's been holding up with everything going on.\n[[00:43],[00:45]] A: Sure.\n[[00:46],[00:46]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:52],[00:59]] B: Oh, I was actually going to ask you about Alex too. Do you know if he's still working on that project he mentioned last month?\n[[00:56],[00:57]] B: Really.\n[[01:00],[01:05]] A: Yeah, I saw him last week actually. He's doing good. He misses you though.\n[[01:02],[01:02]] A: Um.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation flows logically and coherently from one topic to the next. It begins with Speaker A giving Speaker B a gift, which leads to a general check-in on each other's well-being. The conversation naturally transitions to A's work life and then to a mutual acquaintance, Alex. Each speaker's turn is a direct and relevant response to the previous one, showing they are actively listening and engaged. For example, when B expresses concern about A's workload affecting their health, A acknowledges it before smoothly shifting the topic to Alex, a shared interest that B also wanted to discuss. This indicates strong topic coherence and logical consistency throughout the interaction.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long or awkward pauses between speaker turns; the gaps are consistently short (1-2 seconds), which is indicative of a natural and comfortable conversational rhythm. The dialogue does contain several instances of overlap, but they are all brief (1-2 seconds) and serve as natural backchannels (e.g., \"Uh huh,\" \"Right,\" \"Okay, okay\") or thinking sounds (\"Ummm\"). These types of short overlaps do not disrupt the flow but rather enhance it by signaling active listening and engagement. There are no extended, competitive overlaps that would suggest interruption or a struggle for the conversational floor. The turn-taking is smooth and efficient.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/37",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: I can't believe you forgot my birthday. I thought we were best friends.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:04],[00:11]] B: I'm so sorry, Augustus. I totally forgot. It's been a crazy week and I've had a lot on my\n[[00:06],[00:07]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:08],[00:09]] B: I see.\n[[00:10],[00:17]] A: How could you forget? We've been friends for years and my birthday is always on the same day. You knew how much it meant to me.\n[[00:12],[00:13]] A: Sure.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] A: Sure.\n[[00:18],[00:22]] B: I know, and I'm really sorry. I feel awful about it. Please forgive me?\n[[00:19],[00:21]] B: I see.\n[[00:22],[00:28]] A: I don't know. I'm really hurt and disappointed. I feel like you don't value our friendship as much as I do.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] A: Really.\n[[00:29],[00:35]] B: Wait, Augustus, I just want to say, I know I messed up, but can we talk about how I can make it right?\n[[00:32],[00:32]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:35],[00:40]] A: I'm so sorry, Augustus. Please forgive me. I'll make it up to you, I promise.\n[[00:38],[00:38]] A: Mm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates the conversation by expressing hurt over a forgotten birthday. Speaker B responds appropriately with an apology and an explanation. The conversation progresses logically, with A elaborating on their feelings of disappointment and B repeatedly apologizing and seeking to make amends. Each turn is a direct and coherent response to the previous one. There is a potential transcription error in the final turn ([[00:35],[00:40]]), where Speaker A voices an apology that clearly belongs to Speaker B's role in the conversation (\"I'm so sorry, Augustus. Please forgive me.\"). Assuming this is a simple speaker label error, the content of the turn is perfectly relevant and continues the established conversational thread. Given the otherwise perfect coherence, it's reasonable to assess relevance based on the intended dialogue flow, which is excellent.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The conversation flows smoothly without any awkward, prolonged pauses between turns. For instance, the transition from B's turn at [00:22] to A's turn at [00:22] is immediate. The one-second gaps between turns (e.g., [00:17]-[00:18]) are natural conversational pauses. There is a brief, one-second overlap between Speaker B and Speaker A from [00:10] to [00:11], which is common in natural, engaged dialogue and does not disrupt the flow. The other listed overlaps (e.g., [[00:01],[00:02]] A: Mhm.) are backchannels or self-corrections occurring within a single speaker's turn and do not represent a fluency problem between the speakers. Overall, the pacing is natural and seamless.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/38",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Hi, I'm Taija.\n[[00:02],[00:05]] B: Hey there. I'm Magdalen. Nice to meet you.\n[[00:07],[00:10]] A: Likewise. So, what do you like to do for fun?\n[[00:10],[00:15]] B: I like to play video games and listen to music\n[[00:12],[00:12]] B: Uh.\n[[00:14],[00:18]] A: Oh, I love video games too! What kind of games do you usually play?\n[[00:16],[00:17]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:18],[00:24]] B: My favorite game right now is Halo 5 and my favorite band is Breaking Benjamin.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:25],[00:33]] A: Those are both great! I've played Halo 5 a bit myself and—wait, you mentioned Breaking Benjamin? They're one of my favorite bands too!\n[[00:28],[00:29]] A: Right.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and coherent. The conversation starts with a standard greeting and introduction. Speaker A then smoothly transitions the topic to hobbies, a common get-to-know-you question. Speaker B provides a direct answer, mentioning two hobbies. Speaker A actively listens and builds upon B's response by expressing a shared interest in video games and asking a relevant follow-up question. B then provides specific examples for both hobbies. A's final turn shows excitement and a strong connection by relating to both of B's specific examples. The dialogue maintains a consistent and logical flow, with each turn directly related to the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency of this dialogue is excellent. The pauses between turns are short and natural (e.g., the 2-second pause between 00:05 and 00:07). There are no long or awkward silences that would disrupt the flow. The brief overlap between 00:14 and 00:15, where A begins to respond enthusiastically before B has completely finished, is very natural in an engaged conversation and does not hinder communication. The inclusion of backchannels like \"Mhm\" (00:16) and \"Right\" (00:28) further enhances the fluency, as they signal active listening without interrupting the main speaker. Overall, the turn-taking is smooth and mimics a natural, positive interaction.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/39",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: Could you suggest some unique and fun birthday party activities that are exciting but not too extreme? I want something memorable that would be safe for guests of all ages and abilities.\n[[00:11],[00:18]] B: Absolutely! How about an escape room adventure? It's thrilling but completely safe, and great\n[[00:13],[00:13]] B: Really.\n[[00:15],[00:15]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:17],[00:25]] A: Wait, before you go on, could you explain how an escape room would work for a birthday party? I'm worried some guests might feel left out if they're not good at puzzles.\n[[00:26],[00:35]] B: That's a great question! Escape rooms are designed so everyone can contribute differently. Some people spot clues, others\n[[00:28],[00:29]] B: Cool.\n[[00:30],[00:31]] B: I see.\n[[00:34],[00:41]] A: That sounds promising! What about indoor rock climbing—would that be suitable for younger kids or people who aren't very athletic?\n[[00:42],[00:50]] B: Most climbing gyms have beginner walls and harness systems that auto-belay, so it's safe. But younger kids\n[[00:46],[00:47]] B: Cool.\n[[00:49],[00:57]] A: Got it! Could you suggest any other activities similar to escape rooms that focus on teamwork but don't require much physical activity?\n[[00:58],[01:06]] B: Definitely! You could try interactive murder mystery games, where everyone plays a character. Or maybe a scavenger\n[[01:00],[01:01]] B: Uh huh.\n[[01:02],[01:03]] B: Um.\n[[01:05],[01:13]] A: Those sound perfect! For the scavenger hunt, do you have any tips for making it birthday-themed and exciting for adults and kids alike?\n[[01:13],[01:27]] B: Absolutely! Hide small gifts or candy with each clue, and include fun challenges like singing or silly photos. You could make the final prize a birthday cake or a group trophy. Keeps everyone involved!\n[[01:21],[01:22]] B: Uh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses from speaker B are consistently relevant and directly address speaker A's questions. Speaker B provides appropriate suggestions like \"escape room adventure,\" \"murder mystery games,\" and \"scavenger hunt,\" which align perfectly with the user's initial request for unique, safe, and collaborative activities. When speaker A asks for clarification or poses a new constraint, speaker B adapts effectively. For instance, when A expresses concern about puzzles in an escape room, B explains how they are designed for teamwork. When A asks for less physical activities, B provides suitable alternatives. The dialogue shows strong logical consistency and topic coherence throughout.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the conversation flows smoothly and naturally. While there are several instances of overlapping speech, they are not detrimental to the conversation. Most overlaps are either very brief backchannels from speaker B (e.g., \"Really,\" \"Cool\") that show engagement, or they are interruptions initiated by speaker A (e.g., at [00:17], [00:34], [00:49]). In each case where A interrupts, B appropriately stops speaking and cedes the conversational floor, which is a hallmark of good conversational management. There are no extended, competitive overlaps that disrupt the flow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/39",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hi there! It's a beautiful day, isn't it?\n[[00:02],[00:05]] B: Yes, it is. I'm glad I got to enjoy it.\n[[00:05],[00:10]] A: Me too. I love days like this. They just make me so happy.\n[[00:08],[00:08]] A: Right.\n[[00:10],[00:13]] B: That's great. Evangelina, can I ask you something?\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:14],[00:16]] A: Of course! What's up?\n[[00:16],[00:25]] B: Well, I've been noticing that you're in a really good mood today. You're whistling and stopping to smell the flowers, and you just seem so happy. What's your\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] B: Right.\n[[00:24],[00:34]] A: Sorry to jump in, but you know, it's funny you mention that. I was just thinking about how people often overlook the little things that make life beautiful. Do you ever feel like that?\n[[00:27],[00:28]] A: Uh.\n[[00:29],[00:29]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:34],[00:41]] B: Absolutely. Actually, that's what I was trying to ask—what's your secret to staying so positive and appreciating those little things?\n[[00:36],[00:37]] B: Sure.\n[[00:38],[00:39]] B: I see.\n[[00:42],[00:52]] A: There is no secret! I'm just grateful for everything in my life. Every day is a gift, and I try to make the most of it. Life is too short to be anything but happy.\n[[00:45],[00:45]] A: Sure.\n[[00:46],[00:47]] A: Sure.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance and topic coherence. It begins with a natural exchange about the weather, which serves as a springboard for speaker B to comment on speaker A's happy mood. Speaker A interrupts speaker B at [00:24], but the interruption is thematically linked to the ongoing topic of appreciating small things (\"smell the flowers\"). Speaker B adeptly acknowledges A's point and rephrases their original question at [00:34], demonstrating strong conversational skills. Speaker A then provides a direct and relevant answer. The entire conversation flows logically from one point to the next without any inconsistencies or abrupt topic shifts.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is high, with smooth and natural turn-taking. There are no prolonged or awkward pauses between turns; the gaps are consistently one second or less, which is typical for a natural conversation. There is a noticeable overlap from [00:24] to [00:25] where speaker A interrupts speaker B. However, this is handled naturally; speaker A acknowledges the interruption by saying \"Sorry to jump in,\" making it a polite and realistic conversational feature rather than a disruptive one. The other instances of overlapping speech are very brief backchannels (e.g., \"Mm hmm,\" \"Right,\" \"Sure\"), which indicate active listening and contribute positively to the conversational flow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/40",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hi there! Are these puppies really free?\n[[00:04],[00:08]] B: Yes, they are. I'm just trying to find good homes for them.\n[[00:05],[00:06]] B: I see.\n[[00:09],[00:14]] A: That's so great! I've always wanted a puppy of my own. May I take a\n[[00:11],[00:11]] A: Cool.\n[[00:13],[00:21]] B: Sorry to interrupt, but I wanted to mention that these puppies have had their first round of vaccinations, just in case you were wondering about their health.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Uh.\n[[00:21],[00:24]] A: Oh, that's good to know! Can I take a look at them?\n[[00:25],[00:32]] B: Of course. There are six of them, all about eight weeks old. They're a mix of Labrador and golden retriever.\n[[00:27],[00:27]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:29],[00:29]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:33],[00:36]] A: Oh, they're so cute! Can I hold one?\n[[00:36],[00:40]] B: Sure. Just be careful, they're a little bit wiggly.\n[[00:37],[00:39]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:42],[00:45]] A: This one is so adorable! What's his name?\n[[00:43],[00:44]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:45],[00:53]] B: We haven't named them yet. We were waiting for their new owners to choose names they feel are special for their new pets.\n[[00:48],[00:48]] B: Really.\n[[00:49],[00:50]] B: I see.\n[[00:54],[01:00]] A: Oh, I see! By the way, are there any specific care instructions I should follow for this breed mix?\n[[01:01],[01:09]] B: Just the usual puppy care—plenty of exercise, regular vet check-ups, and lots of love. You can name him yourself if you take him home.\n[[01:11],[01:14]] A: Well, if I take him home, can I name him myself?\n[[01:16],[01:20]] B: Absolutely! So, are you interested in taking this pup?\n[[01:22],[01:25]] A: Yes, please! Thank you so much!",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance and logical consistency.\n\n1. A asks if the puppies are free. B confirms they are and explains the goal is to find good homes. This is a relevant and logical exchange.\n2. A expresses excitement and starts to ask another question. B politely interrupts (\"Sorry to interrupt\") to provide relevant, proactive information about the puppies' health (vaccinations). This is a very common and logical thing for a person rehoming pets to do.\n3. A acknowledges the health information and asks to see the puppies. B agrees and provides more details (age, breed). This is coherent and on-topic.\n4. A comments on their cuteness and asks to hold one. B agrees and gives a gentle warning. This is a natural progression of the conversation.\n5. A asks for a puppy's name. B explains they are unnamed so the new owners can choose. This is a perfectly logical and relevant answer.\n6. A asks for care instructions. B gives general, appropriate advice for a puppy and circles back to the naming topic, which flows well.\n7. A asks, \"can I name him myself?\". This is slightly redundant, as B just said, \"You can name him yourself if you take him home.\" However, in a real conversation, people often seek confirmation or might have momentarily missed what was just said. It doesn't break the logical flow, it's a minor hiccup at most.\n8. B confirms A can name the puppy and moves to close the interaction by asking if A wants to take him.\n9. A enthusiastically agrees.\n\nOverall, the dialogue is highly relevant, coherent, and follows a logical path from initial inquiry to final decision. The minor redundancy does not detract from the overall quality.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pauses:**\n- [[00:02],[00:04]]: 2-second pause. Natural.\n- [[00:08],[00:09]]: 1-second pause. Natural.\n- All other pauses between turns are 1-2 seconds long, which is typical for a natural conversation. There are no prolonged or awkward silences.\n\n**Overlaps:**\n- There are numerous short, one-word utterances (e.g., \"I see,\" \"Cool,\" \"Uh huh,\" \"Hmm\") that overlap with the speaker's own main sentence. These appear to be backchannels or fillers that were transcribed during the main utterance, rather than true interruptions. They don't disrupt the flow between the two speakers.\n- [[00:13],[00:14]]: Speaker B begins talking while Speaker A is finishing a sentence. This overlap is very brief (1 second) and B immediately acknowledges it (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), which makes the interaction feel natural and polite rather than disruptive.\n\nConclusion: The fluency is excellent. There are no harmful long pauses. The one instance of a direct speaker-on-speaker overlap is brief, handled appropriately, and is characteristic of natural human conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/41",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: Hi there! Your dog is so cute. Can I pet him?\n[[00:01],[00:01]] A: Right.\n[[00:03],[00:08]] B: Of course! His name is Max and he loves getting attention from new\n[[00:05],[00:06]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:07],[00:12]] A: Sorry to interrupt, but I have to ask, is he good with kids as well?\n[[00:09],[00:10]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:12],[00:23]] B: Yes, he's great with kids! We've had him since he was a puppy and he's just the best dog ever. Max is always really good with people and other dogs too.\n[[00:15],[00:17]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Sure.\n[[00:23],[00:28]] A: He's so lucky to have you as his owner. Dogs are really amazing creatures.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:28],[00:36]] B: I couldn't agree more! They really are man's best friend. They bring so much joy and comfort into our lives.\n[[00:32],[00:33]] B: Sure.\n[[00:36],[00:41]] A: Absolutely, and they provide such unconditional love and companionship.\n[[00:39],[00:39]] A: Cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation flows logically and coherently. It begins with Speaker A asking to pet Speaker B's dog, and Speaker B responds directly and provides the dog's name. Speaker A then asks a relevant follow-up question about whether the dog is good with kids. The conversation then naturally progresses from discussing the specific dog, Max, to a broader, shared appreciation for dogs in general. Each turn is a logical and topically consistent continuation of the previous one, showing that both speakers are actively listening and engaged.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n1. **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are immediate and smooth (e.g., A ends at [00:03] and B begins at [00:03]; B ends at [00:23] and A begins at [00:23]), which indicates a natural and well-paced conversation.\n2. **Overlaps:** There is one clear interruption where Speaker A starts talking at [00:07] while B is still speaking. However, this overlap is brief (about one second) and Speaker A politely acknowledges it (\"Sorry to interrupt...\"). This type of brief, managed overlap is common in natural conversation and does not harm the overall fluency. The other short utterances (e.g., \"Okay, okay,\" \"Sure\") are self-overlaps or backchannels from the current speaker during their own turn. They are not disruptive interactional overlaps between the two participants and do not impede the flow of the dialogue.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/41",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:08]] A: I'm curious about the different military branches in the US. Could you tell me how many there are and what they're called? I'd like to understand each one better.\n[[00:09],[00:16]] B: The US has five military branches. They are the Army,\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: I see.\n[[00:15],[00:25]] A: That's interesting to know there are five branches. Which one has the most members currently serving? I'd like to understand the size differences between them.\n[[00:27],[00:39]] B: The Army is currently the largest branch with about one point three million active soldiers. The other branches are smaller but each has important specialized roles in our defense.\n[[00:30],[00:31]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:32],[00:33]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:34],[00:35]] B: Um.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user A asks two distinct questions in the dialogue, and the user B provides direct and relevant answers to both.\n1. A asks for the number and names of the US military branches. B correctly states there are five and begins to list them before being interrupted.\n2. A then asks which branch is the largest. B correctly identifies the Army and provides its approximate size.\nThe dialogue is logically consistent and maintains topic coherence throughout the interaction.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The gaps of 1-2 seconds are natural in conversation.\n- There is a brief, one-second overlap from [00:15] to [00:16] where A begins speaking before B has completely finished. This is a minor interruption and not an extended overlap that would harm the conversation's flow.\n- The other short utterances from B (\"I see,\" \"That's cool,\" \"Um\") are brief filler/backchannel comments that overlap with its own speech but do not interfere with the turn-taking between A and B. They do not constitute a fluency problem for the interaction itself.\nOverall, the dialogue flows smoothly without significant disruptive events.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/41",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: Who was the very first person to successfully sail all the way around our planet, and could you tell me exactly when this incredible journey happened? I'm fascinated by these early exploration stories.\n[[00:11],[00:20]] B: That would be Ferdinand Magellan, a brave Portuguese explorer. His famous voyage started way back in 1519 and\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: I see.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:19],[00:30]] A: Wait, did Magellan actually complete the whole journey himself? I thought I heard somewhere that he didn't survive the trip - could you clarify what exactly happened to him during the expedition?\n[[00:31],[00:42]] B: You're absolutely right to ask! Magellan actually died before finishing - he was killed in the Philippines during a battle. The voyage\n[[00:34],[00:35]] B: Right.\n[[00:36],[00:36]] B: Cool.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:41],[00:51]] A: That's so tragic! Speaking of the crew, how many ships and sailors originally set out on this dangerous mission, and how many actually made it back to tell the tale?\n[[00:52],[01:00]] B: They started with five ships and about 270 men, which sounds like a lot - but only one ship\n[[00:54],[00:55]] B: Right.\n[[00:56],[00:57]] B: Really.\n[[00:59],[01:09]] A: That's an unbelievable survival rate! What were some of the worst challenges they faced besides the obvious dangers of sailing unknown waters back then?\n[[01:09],[01:20]] B: Oh, they suffered terribly! Many died from scurvy since they didn't have fresh fruits. They ran out of food and ate rats and sawdust.\n[[01:12],[01:13]] B: Um.\n[[01:14],[01:15]] B: Ummm.\n[[01:19],[01:29]] A: Wait, they ate sawdust? That's horrifying! How did they navigate without modern maps or GPS - didn't they get hopelessly lost in the vast Pacific Ocean?\n[[01:29],[01:44]] B: Navigation was incredibly difficult! They used primitive tools like astrolabes to track stars, and often just guessed their way. The Pacific was so huge they went months without seeing land - no wonder they ran out of supplies!\n[[01:34],[01:34]] B: Ummm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B consistently provides direct, accurate, and on-topic answers to Speaker A's questions. For example, when A asks about who first circumnavigated the globe, B correctly identifies Magellan and the start date of the voyage. When A follows up with a clarifying question about whether Magellan himself survived, B correctly explains that he died during the journey. The conversation progresses logically from the main figure to his fate, the crew's statistics, the challenges they faced, and their navigation methods. Each of B's responses is a logical and coherent continuation of the topic introduced by A.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, disruptive pauses between speaker turns; the conversation flows smoothly and at a natural pace. For instance, Speaker B begins their response at [00:11], just one second after Speaker A finishes their question at [00:10]. This pattern of quick turn-taking continues throughout the dialogue. While there are numerous short utterances from Speaker B while A is talking (e.g., \"I see.\", \"Right.\", \"Cool.\"), these are brief backchannels that indicate active listening rather than harmful, extended overlaps that would disrupt the speaker. They do not obscure A's speech and contribute to a natural conversational feel.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/41",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: Could you tell me more about Boo Bear and what made it so special to you? What were your favorite tea party games to play with Boo Bear, and did you ever imagine it had a personality of its own?\n[[00:11],[00:33]] B: Boo Bear was my favorite childhood toy because it felt like a real friend. We had tea parties where I'd pretend we were at a fancy restaurant, serving imaginary cakes and sandwiches. I imagined Boo Bear was very polite and always complimented my cooking. The bear had a sweet, gentle personality in my mind, like a wise old\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:22],[00:23]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:33],[00:47]] A: That sounds wonderful! Can you describe how Boo Bear comforted you during tough times, like when you were sad or scared? Did you ever take it on trips or to special places, and what memories stand out the most from those times?\n[[00:49],[01:15]] B: Boo Bear was my go-to comfort when I felt upset or afraid. I'd hug it tight when I had bad dreams or was nervous about school. Once, I took Boo Bear on a family trip to the beach—we built sandcastles together, and I pretended it loved the ocean waves. Another time, when I was sick, Boo Bear stayed by my side the whole time, like a little nurse. Those memories make me smile even now because Boo Bear felt like family.\n[[00:57],[00:58]] B: I see.\n[[00:58],[00:59]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[01:00],[01:01]] B: Right.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue based on two criteria: Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n- Speaker A starts by asking about a childhood toy, \"Boo Bear,\" its special qualities, and imaginative play.\n- Speaker B provides a detailed and on-topic answer, describing the tea parties and the bear's imagined personality, directly addressing all parts of A's question.\n- Speaker A then asks a follow-up question about the bear's role as a comfort object and specific memories from trips or special occasions.\n- Speaker B again responds directly and relevantly, giving specific examples of how the bear provided comfort (during bad dreams, sickness) and memories from a beach trip.\n- The conversation is logically consistent and stays on the topic of the childhood toy. Both speakers contribute to a coherent narrative. The responses are perfectly relevant.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to analyze the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pause Analysis:**\n- Pause 1: A ends at [00:10], B starts at [00:11]. This is a 1-second pause, which is natural.\n- Pause 2: B ends at [00:33], A starts at [00:33]. There is no pause, indicating a smooth transition.\n- Pause 3: A ends at [00:47], B starts at [00:49]. This is a 2-second pause, which is an acceptable and normal duration for someone to gather their thoughts before speaking.\n- There are no prolonged pauses that harm the flow of conversation.\n\n**Overlap Analysis:**\n- The transcript shows several instances of speaker B making short utterances ([[00:18],[00:19]], [[00:20],[00:21]], etc.) *during their own turn*. These are not overlaps with speaker A. They are brief self-interruptions or filler words.\n- There are no instances where speaker A and speaker B are talking over each other.\n- The flow of conversation between the two speakers is smooth and uninterrupted. The interactional fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/42",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: I'm sorry, I just don't love you anymore.\n[[00:03],[00:08]] B: What? Daysha, we've been married for years! What could possibly have happened to\n[[00:05],[00:06]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:07],[00:13]] A: I met someone else. And I know it sounds cliche, but I just can't help how I feel.\n[[00:09],[00:09]] A: Right.\n[[00:13],[00:15]] B: Who is she? Do I know her?\n[[00:15],[00:18]] A: You don't know her. She's not from around here.\n[[00:18],[00:27]] B: Well, that's convenient. You can just up and leave me for some floozy you've only known for a few months, without even giving us a chance to work things out?\n[[00:21],[00:22]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:22],[00:23]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:27],[00:40]] A: It's not like that and you know it. This has nothing to do with you. It's me, there's something about her that I can't explain. Whenever we're together, I just feel alive in a way I never have before.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:33],[00:34]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] A: Really.\n[[00:40],[00:45]] B: So what, am I supposed to just be okay with this? That you're in love with someone else and want to leave me?\n[[00:42],[00:43]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:45],[00:52]] A: No, of course not. But maybe in time you'll be able to understand why this is happening and forgive me.\n[[00:47],[00:48]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:49],[00:50]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:53],[00:56]] B: And what about our kids? Are you just going to abandon them too?\n[[00:57],[01:10]] A: They're adults now, they don't need me the way they used to. And besides, they'll always have you. You're an amazing mother and they adore you. They'll be fine without me around as long as they have you in their lives.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance of the responses in the dialogue.\n\n1. **A's opening statement [[00:00],[00:02]]**: \"I'm sorry, I just don't love you anymore.\" This sets a clear, albeit painful, topic for the conversation.\n2. **B's response [[00:03],[00:08]]**: \"What? ... we've been married for years! What could possibly have happened...\". This is a perfectly logical and relevant response of shock, disbelief, and a request for an explanation.\n3. **A's explanation [[00:07],[00:13]]**: \"I met someone else...\". This directly answers B's question (\"What could possibly have happened\"). It is coherent and maintains the topic.\n4. **B's follow-up questions [[00:13],[00:15]]**: \"Who is she? Do I know her?\". These are relevant, information-seeking questions that logically follow from A's confession.\n5. **A's answer [[00:15],[00:18]]**: \"You don't know her...\". A direct and relevant answer.\n6. **B's reaction [[00:18],[00:27]]**: B expresses anger and hurt, questioning the fairness of A's actions. This emotional response is entirely consistent with the conversation's context and is a relevant reaction to the preceding turns.\n7. **A's defense [[00:27],[00:40]]**: A tries to explain their feelings further (\"It's not like that... it's me...\"). This is a direct response to B's accusation and an attempt to justify their position, keeping the dialogue on topic.\n8. **B's summary/question [[00:40],[00:45]]**: \"So what, am I supposed to just be okay with this?\". This is a relevant challenge, bringing the focus back to the immediate emotional impact on B.\n9. **A's response [[00:45],[00:52]]**: A acknowledges B's feelings (\"No, of course not...\") but asks for understanding. This is a relevant and empathetic response.\n10. **B's new concern [[00:53],[00:56]]**: \"And what about our kids?\". This introduces a new, highly relevant aspect of the situation, which is a logical progression of the topic.\n11. **A's final response [[00:57],[01:10]]**: A addresses the concern about the children directly.\n\nThe conversation is entirely coherent and logically consistent. Each turn is a direct and relevant response to the previous one, creating a believable and emotionally resonant interaction.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, specifically looking for extended overlaps and long pauses.\n\n1. **Overlaps**: The transcript notes several instances of overlapping speech, such as [[00:05],[00:06]], [[00:09],[00:09]], [[00:21],[00:22]], etc. However, in every case, the overlap is a speaker talking over their *own* utterance (e.g., Speaker B saying \"Okay, okay\" while also delivering their main line). These are not disruptive inter-speaker overlaps but rather self-interruptions or backchanneling that can occur in natural speech. They do not interrupt the flow of conversation between A and B. There are no instances of one speaker cutting off the other for an extended period.\n\n2. **Pauses**: I will check the time gaps between turns.\n * From A at [00:02] to B at [00:03]: 1-second pause. Natural.\n * From A at [00:13] to B at [00:13]: No pause. Smooth turn transition.\n * From B at [00:15] to A at [00:15]: No pause. Smooth turn transition.\n * From A at [00:18] to B at [00:18]: No pause. Smooth turn transition.\n * From A at [00:40] to B at [00:40]: No pause. Smooth turn transition.\n * From B at [00:45] to A at [00:45]: No pause. Smooth turn transition.\n * From A at [00:52] to B at [00:53]: 1-second pause. Natural, especially before asking a weighty question.\n * From B at [00:56] to A at [00:57]: 1-second pause. Natural.\n\nThere are no prolonged or awkward pauses between speakers. The turn-taking is swift and fluid, which is appropriate for a heated, emotional conversation. The flow is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/42",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: I need to adjust this recipe for an 8 by 8 inch pan instead of the 13 by 9 inch one. Could you tell me how to change the baking time and temperature to make sure it cooks properly?\n[[00:12],[00:18]] B: When using a smaller pan, you'll want to bake it a bit longer\n[[00:14],[00:14]] B: Um.\n[[00:17],[00:25]] A: Wait, before you continue, could you explain why we need to lower the temperature when using a smaller pan? I want to understand the science behind it.\n[[00:25],[00:32]] B: Good question! With a smaller pan, the batter is deeper so it takes longer to cook\n[[00:27],[00:28]] B: Uh.\n[[00:29],[00:29]] B: Cool.\n[[00:31],[00:39]] A: That makes sense, thank you. Now could you give me the exact temperature and time adjustments you'd recommend for this size change?\n[[00:39],[00:45]] B: For your 8 by 8 pan, try 325 degrees for about 45 to 50\n[[00:42],[00:42]] B: Really.\n[[00:44],[00:59]] A: Emmm... That's helpful advice about the pan size adjustment. Since I don't have canned pumpkin, what other ingredients could I use instead that would work well in this recipe? I want to keep the flavor as close as possible.\n[[00:59],[01:05]] B: The best substitutes would be mashed sweet potato or butternut\n[[01:01],[01:02]] B: Sure.\n[[01:04],[01:10]] A: How exactly should I prepare the sweet potato to make sure the texture comes out right in the final dish?\n[[01:10],[01:19]] B: You'll want to peel, cube, and boil the sweet potato until very soft, then mash it\n[[01:13],[01:13]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[01:14],[01:15]] B: Right.\n[[01:18],[01:24]] A: Would adding extra spices help make up for any flavor difference when using sweet potato instead of pumpkin?\n[[01:25],[01:35]] B: Absolutely! Adding a bit more pumpkin pie spice will help. You might also want to include a teaspoon of vanilla extract to enhance the flavor.\n[[01:28],[01:29]] B: Uh huh.\n[[01:30],[01:30]] B: Okay,okay.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue for response relevance and interactional fluency.\n\n1. **Response Relevance:** I will analyze if the responses are logical and on-topic.\n * A asks about adjusting baking time/temp for a smaller pan.\n * B starts to explain.\n * A interrupts to ask for the scientific reason behind the adjustment. This is a relevant clarifying question.\n * B provides a logical explanation (deeper batter).\n * A accepts the explanation and returns to the original question for specific numbers. The flow is coherent.\n * B provides specific temperature and time recommendations. This is a direct and relevant answer.\n * A then changes the topic to an ingredient substitution (pumpkin). This is a logical shift within the context of a recipe discussion.\n * B provides relevant substitutes (sweet potato).\n * A asks for preparation details for the substitute. This is a logical follow-up.\n * B provides the preparation details.\n * A asks about adjusting spices to compensate for the flavor difference. This is another relevant and thoughtful follow-up.\n * B gives specific advice on spices.\n * Overall, the conversation is highly coherent. Each turn logically follows the previous one. The responses are always relevant to the questions asked. The topic shift is handled naturally.\n\n2. **Interactional Fluency:** I will check the timestamps for long pauses or extended overlaps.\n * Pause between A's first turn and B's response: `[[00:11]]` to `[[00:12]]` is a 1-second pause, which is perfectly normal.\n * Overlap 1: `[[00:12],[00:18]] B` and `[[00:17],[00:25]] A`. There is a 1-second overlap from 00:17 to 00:18 as A interjects with a clarifying question. This is a very natural conversational interruption and not a fluency issue.\n * Overlap 2: `[[00:25],[00:32]] B` and `[[00:31],[00:39]] A`. There is a 1-second overlap from 00:31 to 00:32 as A begins their next turn. This is also natural turn-taking.\n * The remaining overlaps (`00:44`-`00:45`, `01:04`-`01:05`, `01:18`-`01:19`) are all similarly brief (1 second) and represent natural conversational flow where one speaker begins just before the other has completely finished.\n * There are no prolonged pauses between turns. The pace is quick and responsive.\n * The dialogue is fluent and natural, with no harmful overlaps or pauses.\n\n3. **Overall Score:** Both response relevance and interactional fluency are excellent. The conversation is a model of a cooperative and efficient exchange of information. The score should be 2.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency of this dialogue is excellent. I analyzed the timestamps for any potentially harmful pauses or overlaps. The pauses between turns are consistently brief and natural, typically one second or less, indicating a responsive and engaged conversation. There are several instances of overlapping speech (e.g., at `[00:17]`, `[00:31]`, `[00:44]`). However, these overlaps are all very short (1 second) and serve natural conversational functions, such as one speaker interjecting with a clarifying question or beginning their turn slightly before the other has finished. These are characteristic of a dynamic and fluent conversation, not a sign of speakers talking over each other in a disruptive manner. Therefore, there are no issues with interactional fluency.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/42",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:13]] A: Could you explain in simpler terms why Entergy wants to raise power bills and how much more customers will actually pay each month? I'm trying to understand the exact impact on my electricity and gas bills.\n[[00:14],[00:22]] B: Entergy needs more money for storm repairs after hurricanes damage power lines. They\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Um.\n[[00:21],[00:32]] A: What exactly is this storm reserve fund and why does it need seventy-five million dollars by twenty seventeen? That seems like a huge amount of money - can you break down why they need so much?\n[[00:33],[00:58]] B: The storm reserve helps pay for fixing power lines after big storms like hurricanes. Entergy used fourteen million dollars from this fund after recent storms, which wasn't enough. They want seventy-five million to handle future storms better without causing big rate jumps later. More money means faster repairs and more stable bills after disasters.\n[[00:40],[00:42]] B: Right.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:45],[00:45]] B: Hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for Response Relevance.\n\n1. **A's first turn ([00:00]-[00:13]):** A asks for a simple explanation about why Entergy is raising bills and what the financial impact will be. This sets a clear topic.\n2. **B's first turn ([00:14]-[00:22]):** B begins to answer the \"why\" part of the question, attributing the need for more money to storm repairs. This is a direct and relevant start to the explanation.\n3. **A's second turn ([00:21]-[00:32]):** A interrupts to ask a more specific follow-up question about the \"storm reserve fund.\" This question is a logical progression, seeking more detail on the reason B just started to provide. It shows A is engaged and wants a deeper understanding, maintaining topic coherence.\n4. **B's second turn ([00:33]-[00:58]):** B provides a detailed and comprehensive answer to A's specific question. B explains the purpose of the fund, why the current amount is insufficient, and the rationale for the proposed $75 million. This response is highly relevant, directly addressing all parts of A's second question and continuing the established topic.\n\nThe entire conversation is logically consistent and stays on topic. The responses are directly relevant to the questions asked.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for Interactional Fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:** There are no long pauses indicated between speaker turns. The transition from A to B and back is immediate, suggesting a fluid conversation.\n2. **Overlaps:**\n * `[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Um.` - This is a brief, natural hesitation filler and does not impede the flow.\n * `[[00:21],[00:32]] A` overlaps with `[[00:14],[00:22]] B`. This is a clear interruption where A cuts B off to ask a more pointed question. However, the overlap itself is very short (about 1 second from [00:21] to [00:22]). While A takes over the turn, this type of interruption is common in natural, engaged dialogue and doesn't derail the conversation here. B smoothly cedes the floor and then responds to the new question.\n * The brief interjections `[[00:40],[00:42]] B: Right.`, `[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Hmm.`, and `[[00:45],[00:45]] B: Hmm.` appear to be transcription errors, as a speaker wouldn't typically provide backchanneling to their own utterance. Assuming these were from speaker A, they would be short, appropriate feedback cues that support fluency. If they are from B, they are very brief self-corrections or fillers that don't disrupt the main message. In either case, they are not harmful extended overlaps.\n\nOverall, despite the interruption, the conversation flows well. There are no prolonged, problematic overlaps or pauses that would indicate a breakdown in communication. The interaction remains natural and efficient.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/43",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: I really appreciate those ideas about matching activities to my personality, but could you explain how to make sure I stick with them long-term? What are some tricks to stay motivated when the novelty wears off?\n[[00:12],[00:20]] B: Great question! The key is to start small and set achievable goals. Like if you choose walking,\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:19],[00:29]] A: Tracking sounds useful, but sometimes I get bored doing the same thing over and over. How can I keep my routine fresh and exciting without giving up completely?\n[[00:29],[00:41]] B: Mix things up! Try alternating between two or three activities you enjoy. You could walk Mondays, swim Wednesdays, and\n[[00:33],[00:34]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: I see.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:41],[00:51]] A: That variation makes sense, but what if I still struggle to stay consistent? Are there specific strategies for building habits that actually last beyond the first few weeks?\n[[00:52],[01:02]] B: Absolutely! Pair your new activity with something you already do daily, like exercising right after breakfast. Celebrate\n[[00:55],[00:56]] B: I see.\n[[00:57],[00:58]] B: Uh huh.\n[[01:01],[01:10]] A: I like that positive approach, but could you give me some concrete examples of how to pair activities? Like what would work well with my morning coffee or evening TV time?\n[[01:10],[01:20]] B: Sure thing! While your coffee brews, do some quick stretches. During TV commercials, stand up and march in place. After dinner, take\n[[01:13],[01:14]] B: Right.\n[[01:15],[01:16]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[01:19],[01:30]] A: Those are really practical suggestions that fit into my existing routine. Could you also share how long it typically takes before these activities start feeling like natural habits?\n[[01:31],[01:44]] B: Research shows it takes about two months for new habits to stick, but everyone's different. The more you enjoy the activity and see benefits, the faster it'll feel automatic. Just stay patient with yourself!\n[[01:35],[01:35]] B: Mhm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A consistently asks clear, follow-up questions that logically build on the information provided by speaker B. For example, after B suggests starting small, A asks about keeping routines fresh ([[00:19]]). After B suggests variation, A asks for more specific habit-building strategies ([[00:41]]). Speaker B's responses are always directly relevant, providing practical and targeted advice that precisely answers A's questions. The conversation maintains a coherent topic—how to build and maintain an exercise habit—and progresses logically from general ideas to specific, actionable examples. There are no logical inconsistencies or off-topic diversions.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency of this dialogue is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth and natural, with no long, awkward pauses between speakers. The brief 1-second pauses (e.g., between [[00:11]] and [[00:12]]) are typical of a natural conversation. The transcript contains numerous short, overlapping backchannels like \"Mhm\" and \"I see.\" Although they are attributed to speaker B during their own speaking turn, this is almost certainly a transcription error. Assuming these are from speaker A (the listener), they function as positive, active listening cues that encourage the speaker and show engagement without disrupting the flow. There are no instances of extended, competitive overlaps where both speakers are trying to take the floor. The pacing is conversational and fluid throughout.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/43",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:09]] A: What are the main scientific theories about how life began on our planet? I'm really curious to hear the different explanations researchers have come up with over the years.\n[[00:10],[00:18]] B: Well, there are three big theories scientists talk about most often. First is the\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: Um.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Um.\n[[00:16],[00:24]] A: Wait, could you explain what exactly they mean by chemical evolution before you continue? I want to make sure I understand that concept properly first.\n[[00:25],[00:34]] B: Sure! Chemical evolution means simple molecules slowly combined and became more complex over millions of\n[[00:28],[00:28]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: Mm.\n[[00:33],[00:42]] A: That makes sense - but which of these origin theories do most researchers currently think is the most likely explanation? What's the scientific consensus?\n[[00:42],[00:49]] B: Right now, many experts lean toward chemical evolution as the strongest possibility. But here's\n[[00:45],[00:46]] B: Mm.\n[[00:48],[00:56]] A: Oh, the deep sea one? Could you tell me more about why that theory is becoming popular recently? I've heard some scientists mention it too.\n[[00:56],[01:12]] B: Absolutely! The hydrothermal vent theory suggests life began near hot underwater vents. These provide energy and minerals that could have helped create the first living cells. New discoveries keep making this idea more convincing.\n[[01:01],[01:02]] B: Uh.\n[[01:03],[01:03]] B: Uh.\n[[01:04],[01:05]] B: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A begins by asking a broad question about the origin of life theories. Speaker B starts to answer directly. Speaker A then interjects with a relevant clarifying question about a specific term (\"chemical evolution\"), demonstrating active listening. B provides a clear definition. A then asks a logical follow-up question about the scientific consensus. B answers this directly. A then asks for more detail on a specific theory B alluded to (the deep-sea vent theory). B provides a detailed explanation. Each turn directly addresses or logically builds upon the previous one, and the conversation stays coherently focused on the initial topic.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very natural. There are no long, disruptive pauses between turns. The gaps are minimal, indicating an engaged and fast-paced conversation. There are several instances of speaker overlap (e.g., [[00:16],[00:18]], [[00:33],[00:34]], [[00:48],[00:49]]), but they are brief and function as cooperative interruptions. For example, A interrupts B to ask for clarification, which is a common feature of natural dialogue. In other cases, A jumps in as B is finishing a sentence, showing eagerness and understanding. These short overlaps contribute to a dynamic and realistic conversational flow rather than hindering it.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/44",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:12]] A: That's helpful, but could you be more specific about how much red pepper flakes or cayenne I should start with for a medium spice level? Also, would adding these spices change the cooking time at all?\n[[00:12],[00:24]] B: For a medium spice level, I'd suggest starting with about a quarter teaspoon of red pepper flakes or an eighth teaspoon of cayenne. You can always add more later. The good news\n[[00:16],[00:16]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Mm.\n[[00:23],[00:32]] A: What if I want to make this soup ahead of time for meal prep? How long will it keep in the fridge, and does freezing affect the texture when I reheat it later?\n[[00:32],[00:43]] B: Tomato soup keeps well! In the fridge, it'll stay good for 3-4 days in an airtight container. Freezing works too - just leave out the cream until\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: Um.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:42],[00:53]] A: You mentioned leaving out the cream when freezing - could you remind me when exactly to add it if I'm making the soup ahead? And what's the best way to reheat frozen soup without curdling the cream?\n[[00:53],[01:04]] B: Absolutely! Add the cream only when you're ready to serve. For frozen soup, thaw it overnight first, then heat gently on the stove. When it's hot, remove\n[[00:56],[00:57]] B: Right.\n[[00:58],[00:59]] B: That's cool.\n[[01:03],[01:11]] A: I'm curious about the roasted tomato variation you mentioned earlier - how does roasting change the flavor, and what's the best way to roast tomatoes for this soup?\n[[01:12],[01:23]] B: Roasting gives tomatoes a deeper, sweeter flavor. Just cut them in half, drizzle with olive oil, and roast at 400 degrees for\n[[01:17],[01:18]] B: Mhm.\n[[01:22],[01:32]] A: That sounds delicious! For the roasted version, should I adjust the amount of broth since the tomatoes will be more concentrated? And do I still need to sauté the onions and garlic separately?\n[[01:33],[01:49]] B: Great questions! Yes, use a bit less broth - start with half and add more if needed. Definitely still sauté the onions and garlic separately - that base flavor is important. The roasting just enhances the tomato flavor without changing the basic method.\n[[01:38],[01:39]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[01:40],[01:41]] B: Cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and coherence of the dialogue.\n- A asks a specific question about spice quantity and cooking time.\n- B provides a precise answer for the spice quantity. While B gets cut off before addressing the cooking time, the start of the response is directly relevant.\n- A then shifts the topic to making the soup ahead of time, which is a logical progression in a cooking conversation.\n- B provides clear instructions for storing the soup in the fridge and freezer.\n- A asks for clarification on B's previous point about freezing, which is a perfect example of a coherent follow-up.\n- B clarifies the point about adding cream and reheating.\n- A then circles back to a previously mentioned topic (roasted tomatoes), which is still coherent within the overall context of the soup recipe.\n- B explains the flavor change and roasting method.\n- A asks for further adjustments needed for the roasted version.\n- B answers these follow-up questions directly and explains the reasoning.\n\nThroughout the dialogue, B's responses are consistently on-topic, directly answering A's questions. The conversation flows logically from one aspect of the recipe to another. There are no inconsistencies or irrelevant turns.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, specifically looking for extended overlaps and long pauses.\n- **Pauses:** There are no long or awkward pauses between turns. The transition from one speaker to the next is immediate and smooth, indicating an engaged conversation.\n- **Overlaps:** There are several instances where speaker A begins talking just before speaker B has completely finished their sentence.\n - [[00:23],[00:24]]: A overlaps B for about one second.\n - [[00:42],[00:43]]: A overlaps B for about one second.\n - [[01:03],[01:04]]: A overlaps B for about one second.\n - [[01:22],[01:23]]: A overlaps B for about one second.\nThese overlaps are very brief (around 1 second each) and are typical of a natural, fast-paced conversation where the listener is eager to ask a follow-up question. They are not prolonged or disruptive and do not hinder communication. They are considered acceptable and even natural. The other sounds from B (like \"Ummm,\" \"Mhm\") are backchannels or fillers within their own turn, not disruptive overlaps. The fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/44",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: I don't know, I just feel like something is wrong with me.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Really.\n[[00:03],[00:08]] B: Abigael, you're always worrying about something. There's nothing wrong with\n[[00:05],[00:06]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:07],[00:12]] A: But what if there is? I mean, what if I'm really sick and nobody knows it?\n[[00:09],[00:10]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:13],[00:20]] B: Abigael, you're healthy as a horse. Stop worrying so much. You don't need to stress yourself out over every little thing.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Uh.\n[[00:20],[00:26]] A: I know, but I can't help it. It's like my brain is always thinking about the worst possible outcome.\n[[00:23],[00:24]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:26],[00:32]] B: Maybe you should see a therapist or something. They might be able to help you deal with your anxiety.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: Mm.\n[[00:32],[00:37]] A: Yeah, maybe that's a good idea. Thanks for listening to me, I really appreciate it.\n[[00:34],[00:35]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:38],[00:39]] B: Any time, Abigael.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A begins by expressing anxiety about their health, and Speaker B responds directly with reassurance. The conversation progresses logically: A counters the reassurance with more specific worries, B reiterates the reassurance and advises against stress, A explains the nature of their anxiety, and B offers a concrete, helpful suggestion (seeing a therapist). Each turn is a direct and coherent reaction to the previous one, maintaining a clear and consistent topic throughout the interaction. The conversation flows from problem statement to a potential solution in a very natural way.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long or awkward pauses between turns, indicating a smooth and engaging conversation. For example, Speaker B starts speaking at [00:03] immediately after Speaker A finishes. There is one minor, one-second overlap from [00:07] to [00:08] where A begins to speak just before B finishes. This type of brief overlap is very common in natural human speech and does not disrupt the flow; in fact, it often signals active engagement. The rest of the turn-taking is seamless. There are no harmful, extended overlaps or prolonged silences that would indicate a breakdown in fluency.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/44",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:06]] A: What type of potatoes would work best for this recipe? I'm looking for ones that will make really crispy hash browns.\n[[00:07],[00:15]] B: Russets or Yukon Gold potatoes are great choices. They're starchy and get nice and crispy when cooked. Maris Piper\n[[00:09],[00:10]] B: Right.\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: Really.\n[[00:14],[00:23]] A: I don't like beetroot - what could I use instead of pickled beetroot in this recipe? I want something with good flavor that goes well with salmon and hash browns.\n[[00:24],[00:37]] B: You could try roasted sweet potatoes or grilled bell peppers. Mushrooms or zucchini would work nicely too. Avocado or sun-dried tomatoes would add great flavor. Pick whichever sounds tastiest to you!\n[[00:28],[00:28]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: Mm.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Sure.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue based on Response Relevance.\n\n1. **A's first question ([[00:00],[00:06]]):** A asks for the best type of potatoes for crispy hash browns.\n2. **B's first response ([[00:07],[00:15]]):** B directly answers by suggesting \"Russets or Yukon Gold potatoes\" and explains why (\"They're starchy and get nice and crispy\"). This is a perfectly relevant and helpful answer.\n3. **A's second question ([[00:14],[00:23]]):** A asks for a substitute for pickled beetroot, explaining their dislike and the desired flavor profile.\n4. **B's second response ([[00:24],[00:37]]):** B provides a list of multiple relevant and logical substitutes (\"roasted sweet potatoes or grilled bell peppers. Mushrooms or zucchini...Avocado or sun-dried tomatoes\"). These suggestions fit the context of the meal (salmon and hash browns) and directly address A's request.\n\nBoth of B's responses are directly relevant, coherent, and logically consistent with A's questions. The conversation stays on topic and is helpful.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue based on Interactional Fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:**\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's first turn ending at [00:06] and B's response starting at [00:07].\n * There is a 1-second pause between B's main utterance ending at [00:12] and A's next turn starting at [00:14].\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's second turn ending at [00:23] and B's response starting at [00:24].\n * All pauses are brief and represent a natural turn-taking rhythm. There are no long, awkward silences.\n\n2. **Overlaps:**\n * There is a minor overlap at [00:14] where B is finishing their sentence (\"Maris Piper\") as A begins their next question. This is a very brief, one-word overlap at a turn transition, which is common in natural speech and not disruptive.\n * The other utterances from B (\"Right\", \"Really\", \"Hmm\", \"Mm\", \"Sure\") are transcribed as overlapping with B's own main speech. These are likely backchannels or filler words that do not interfere with the flow of conversation between the two speakers. They are not extended and do not harm fluency.\n\nThe interaction is smooth, with natural pauses and negligible, non-disruptive overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/45",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: Do you know what I like the most about Emma Wat\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:02],[00:09]] B: Sorry to interrupt, but I just have to say, I really admire how she's used her platform to advocate for social issues.\n[[00:06],[00:07]] B: Um.\n[[00:10],[00:15]] A: Well, I think she's great! I really love the way she's focused on social issues.\n[[00:11],[00:12]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:15],[00:19]] B: I agree. She's been very vocal about the topic of gender equality.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:20],[00:25]] A: Yes, and what I was going to say earlier is that her intelligence and humility are also really inspiring.\n[[00:22],[00:22]] A: Sure.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and coherence of the conversation.\n\n1. **A starts a topic:** \"Do you know what I like the most about Emma Wat-\"\n2. **B interrupts but stays on topic:** B cuts in to talk about admiring Emma Watson's advocacy for social issues. While an interruption, the topic remains \"Emma Watson\" and her positive qualities.\n3. **A acknowledges and agrees:** A responds directly to B's point, agreeing that her focus on social issues is great. This shows A is listening and the conversation is coherent.\n4. **B elaborates:** B builds on the \"social issues\" point by specifying \"gender equality.\" This is a logical and relevant continuation.\n5. **A circles back:** A agrees with B and then finishes their original thought from the beginning of the conversation (\"what I was going to say earlier...\"). This demonstrates excellent topic coherence and memory within the conversation.\n\nAll turns are logically connected and revolve around the central topic of admiring Emma Watson. The dialogue is highly relevant and coherent.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between turns. The gaps are minimal and natural (e.g., a one-second gap between B's turn ending at [00:09] and A's starting at [00:10]). The turn-taking is smooth.\n2. **Overlaps:** There is a significant overlap from [00:02] to [00:03] where B interrupts A. However, this is handled in a very natural conversational manner. B explicitly says, \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which mitigates the negative impact of the overlap. This kind of enthusiastic interruption is common in natural dialogue and is not considered a harmful fluency issue, especially when acknowledged. Other minor overlaps are backchannels (`Mm hmm`, `Hmm`, `Sure`) which are normal and contribute to a natural flow rather than hinder it.\n\nThe overall flow of the conversation is smooth and natural, without any harmful pauses or disruptive, extended overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/45",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:13]] A: Could you explain in simpler terms how Greek Orthodox icons help people understand their faith better? I'm curious about how these images make complex religious ideas easier to grasp for ordinary believers.\n[[00:13],[00:20]] B: Icons act like holy picture books that tell stories without words.\n[[00:15],[00:17]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Mm.\n[[00:20],[00:31]] A: That makes sense, but could you give me some specific examples of how different icons teach different lessons? Like how does an icon of Jesus differ from one of Mary in what it teaches believers?\n[[00:32],[00:51]] B: An icon of Jesus as Pantocrator teaches about his power and judgment, showing him as ruler of all. Mary's icons often show her gentle care, teaching about protection and motherhood. Each holy person's icon highlights their special role in God's plan.\n[[00:38],[00:39]] B: Really.\n[[00:40],[00:41]] B: Really.\n[[00:42],[00:44]] B: Uh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance.\n\n1. **A's first turn ([00:00]-[00:13]):** Speaker A asks a clear, well-defined question about how Greek Orthodox icons simplify complex religious ideas for believers.\n2. **B's first turn ([00:13]-[00:20]):** Speaker B provides a direct and simple analogy (\"holy picture books that tell stories without words\"). This is a perfectly relevant and coherent answer to A's question.\n3. **A's second turn ([00:20]-[00:31]):** Speaker A acknowledges B's answer (\"That makes sense\") and then builds upon it with a logical follow-up question, asking for specific examples to differentiate the teachings of different icons (Jesus vs. Mary). This demonstrates excellent topic coherence.\n4. **B's second turn ([00:32]-[00:51]):** Speaker B directly addresses the request for examples, explaining the specific symbolism and teaching of an icon of Jesus (Pantocrator) and icons of Mary. The answer is logically consistent with the question and the previous turn.\n\nThe entire conversation is highly relevant, with each turn logically following the one before it. The topic is maintained and developed coherently.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, focusing on pauses and overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:**\n * Between A's first turn ending at [00:13] and B's response starting at [00:13], there is no pause. The transition is immediate and smooth.\n * Between B's turn ending at [00:20] and A's next turn starting at [00:20], there is again no pause. The turn-taking is crisp.\n * Between A's second turn ending at [00:31] and B's response starting at [00:32], there is a one-second pause. This is a completely natural and non-disruptive pause for turn-taking in a conversation.\n * There are no prolonged or awkward pauses in the dialogue.\n\n2. **Overlaps:**\n * The transcript lists several interjections from speaker B (e.g., [00:15]-[00:17] \"Uh huh\", [00:38]-[00:39] \"Really\"). However, the timestamps for these interjections fall *within* the timestamps of B's main speaking turns ([00:13]-[00:20] and [00:32]-[00:51]). This means B is not overlapping with A; these are simply filler words or self-corrections within B's own speech.\n * There are no instances where Speaker A and Speaker B are talking over each other in a disruptive manner.\n\nThe interactional flow is excellent. Turn-taking is clean and proceeds at a natural pace without any harmful fluency issues.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/45",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:05]] A: Hello, I need a train on Wednesday arriving at 14:30.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:05],[00:09]] B: Ok, I can help you with that. Where will you be departing\n[[00:07],[00:08]] B: Really.\n[[00:08],[00:15]] A: Sorry, I should have mentioned, I am departing from Cambridge and going to Leicester and I need to arrive by 14:30.\n[[00:11],[00:12]] A: Really.\n[[00:16],[00:21]] B: TR2176 leaves at 09:21. Can I book that for you?\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Uh.\n[[00:22],[00:30]] A: Yes, please make a booking for 3 people. Make sure you get the reference number correctly so I can confirm the booking later on.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] A: Sure.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:31],[00:37]] B: Oh, before I forget, do you need any specific seating arrangements, like all three seats together?\n[[00:34],[00:35]] B: Um.\n[[00:39],[00:54]] A: No specific seating needed, just the booking is fine. Booking was successful, the total fee is 113.4 GBP payable at the station. Reference number is: FHU6LGXD. Is there anything else I could help you with?\n[[00:43],[00:44]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:45],[00:46]] A: Cool.\n[[00:47],[00:48]] A: Right.\n[[00:54],[00:58]] B: I'm looking for some information about a and b guest house.\n[[00:59],[01:09]] A: It is located in the east, is moderately priced, and has a 4-star rating. It has free internet. It's located at 124 Tenison Road.\n[[01:10],[01:12]] B: Thank you. Can I also get the phone number?\n[[01:13],[01:21]] A: Sure. Their phone number is 01223315702. Anything more I can help with?\n[[01:22],[01:24]] B: No, that is all I need for now.\n[[01:26],[01:27]] A: It's been my pleasure. Goodbye.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance. I will analyze the conversation turn by turn.\n1. A starts by clearly stating their need: a train on Wednesday arriving by 14:30.\n2. B asks for the departure and destination, which is a necessary and relevant follow-up question.\n3. A provides the missing information (Cambridge to Leicester) and reiterates the arrival time. This is a perfectly coherent response.\n4. B offers a specific train and asks to book, which directly addresses A's request.\n5. A agrees to the booking and adds the number of people, which is a logical next step.\n6. B proactively asks about seating arrangements, which is a relevant and helpful question for a group booking.\n7. A's response at [00:39] is slightly unusual. A, the user, confirms their own booking and provides the reference number, acting as the agent. However, the *content* of the turn (confirming the booking, providing fee and reference number) is exactly what was needed to complete the task. So, while the speaker role is momentarily confused, the information itself is highly relevant and maintains the logical flow of the task.\n8. B then smoothly transitions to a new, secondary request about a guesthouse. This is logical since A (acting as the agent) had just asked \"Is there anything else I could help you with?\".\n9. A provides relevant information about the guesthouse.\n10. B asks for the phone number, a relevant follow-up.\n11. A provides the number and offers further help.\n12. B confirms they have everything they need.\n13. A gives a polite closing.\n\nOverall, the dialogue is consistently on-topic and logical. Despite the brief role confusion, the informational content remains relevant and coherent, allowing both tasks to be completed successfully.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate interactional fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n- **Pauses:** I'll check the time gaps between turns.\n - [00:05] A ends, [00:05] B starts. No pause.\n - [00:09] B ends, [00:08] A starts. This is an overlap.\n - [00:15] A ends, [00:16] B starts. 1-second pause, which is natural.\n - [00:21] B ends, [00:22] A starts. 1-second pause, natural.\n - [00:30] A ends, [00:31] B starts. 1-second pause, natural.\n - [00:37] B ends, [00:39] A starts. 2-second pause, acceptable.\n - [00:54] A ends, [00:54] B starts. No pause.\n - [00:58] B ends, [00:59] A starts. 1-second pause, natural.\n - [01:12] B ends, [01:13] A starts. 1-second pause, natural.\n - [01:24] B ends, [01:26] A starts. 2-second pause, acceptable for a closing turn.\n - There are no prolonged or awkward pauses in the dialogue.\n\n- **Overlaps:**\n - There is a 1-second overlap between B's turn at [00:05]-[00:09] and A's turn at [00:08]-[00:15]. A starts speaking to provide the information that B is in the middle of asking for. This is a very common and natural type of conversational repair and is not disruptive.\n - The transcript contains numerous single-word utterances (\"Mhm\", \"Really\", \"Sure\", \"Okay,okay\") that are transcribed as if the speaker is overlapping with themselves. This is likely a transcription artifact. Interpreting them as backchannels (brief affirmations while the other person is speaking), they actually contribute to a sense of fluent, engaged conversation rather than detracting from it.\n - There are no extended, competitive overlaps where both speakers talk over each other for a long time.\n\nThe interaction flows smoothly with natural turn-taking, no long pauses, and only a brief, non-harmful overlap.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/46",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: Hey there. So, um, how are you doing tonight?\n[[00:01],[00:01]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:03],[00:08]] B: I'm doing all right. Just hanging out at home, relaxing. You know.\n[[00:05],[00:06]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:08],[00:12]] A: Yeah, I hear that. So what have you been up to lately? Anything exciting?\n[[00:10],[00:11]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:13],[00:17]] B: Nah, not really. Just the usual stuff. You know how it is.\n[[00:15],[00:15]] B: Uh.\n[[00:18],[00:30]] A: Yeah, I do know how it is. But it's always nice to hear about what's going on in someone else's life, even if it's nothing too exciting. So tell me more about what's been going on with you\n[[00:21],[00:22]] A: I see.\n[[00:23],[00:24]] A: Really.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:29],[00:34]] B: Sorry to jump in, but I'm curious, have you tried any new hobbies or activities recently?\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: I see.\n[[00:34],[00:44]] A: Well, let's see. I went to the grocery store the other day and got some new cereal. It's really good. Other than that, not much has been going on.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] A: Right.\n[[00:39],[00:41]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:44],[00:50]] B: That sounds like a pretty eventful week to me! I'm glad you're enjoying the new cereal. What kind is it?\n[[00:51],[00:52]] A: It's Frosted Flakes.\n[[00:53],[00:55]] B: Oh, I love Frosted Flakes! They're my favorite.\n[[00:56],[00:59]] A: Yeah, they're pretty good. I like them a lot.\n[[00:59],[01:02]] B: So, um, what do you think about getting started?\n[[01:03],[01:11]] A: Uh, sure. But before we do, I was going to mention that I haven't tried any new hobbies yet. Maybe you have some suggestions?",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains logical consistency and topic coherence throughout. The conversation begins with standard greetings and small talk about how each person is doing. When speaker B gives a vague answer (\"the usual stuff\"), speaker A prompts for more detail. Speaker B then politely interrupts (\"Sorry to jump in...\") to shift the topic by asking speaker A about new hobbies. This is a common conversational strategy and is handled appropriately. Speaker A answers, leading to a brief, coherent exchange about cereal. Speaker B then attempts to transition to the main task (\"getting started\"), which is a logical next step. Speaker A agrees but first circles back to the hobbies topic for clarification, which is also a coherent move, showing they were still processing the earlier question. Every turn is a relevant response to the previous one, and the topic shifts are managed in a natural way.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long or awkward pauses between turns; the speakers respond to each other promptly. There is one clear instance of an extended overlap from [00:29] to [00:30] where speaker B begins talking while speaker A is finishing their sentence. However, this is a brief, one-second overlap, and speaker B immediately mitigates it by saying, \"Sorry to jump in,\" which makes the interruption feel natural and polite rather than disruptive. This type of brief, managed overlap is common in natural conversation and does not harm the overall fluency. All other turn-taking is smooth.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/46",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: I don't like waiting. It's so boring and makes me feel antsy.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Cool.\n[[00:05],[00:11]] B: Yeah, I know what you mean. I hate waiting too. It's always so tedious and\n[[00:08],[00:09]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:10],[00:20]] A: Do you think there's any way to make it less tedious? I especially hate waiting in line or for someone to show up. I just start fidgeting and tapping my foot impatiently.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:20],[00:25]] B: Yeah, I know exactly what you mean! Waiting is just the worst.\n[[00:22],[00:24]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:25],[00:32]] A: Yeah, I really don't like it. It's just so boring and frustrating. I wish there was some way to make it more bearable.\n[[00:28],[00:29]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:33],[00:38]] B: Well, sometimes I try to distract myself by people watching or reading something on my phone.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: I see.\n[[00:39],[00:48]] A: Oh, that's a good idea! Do you also listen to music? That might work. I'll have to try that next time I'm stuck waiting somewhere. Thanks for the tip!\n[[00:41],[00:42]] A: Right.\n[[00:44],[00:45]] A: Um.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains a high level of relevance and coherence. The conversation starts with speaker A expressing their dislike for waiting. Speaker B immediately agrees and validates A's feelings. The topic then naturally progresses to A asking for ways to make waiting less tedious. B offers a practical suggestion (people-watching, using a phone), which A receives positively and builds upon by suggesting music. Each turn is a direct and logical response to the preceding one, creating a cohesive and easy-to-follow conversation. There are no deviations from the topic or logical inconsistencies.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The pauses between turns are brief and natural (e.g., the 2-second pause between [00:03] and [00:05], and 1-second pauses later on). There is one minor, one-second overlap where A begins speaking at [00:10] as B is finishing their turn at [00:11]. This type of brief overlap is common in natural, engaged conversation and does not hinder communication. The other listed overlaps are all self-overlaps (e.g., \"Cool\" at [00:01] within A's turn from [00:00]-[00:03]), which are likely fillers or backchannels and do not disrupt the flow between the two speakers. Overall, the turn-taking is smooth and seamless.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/46",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Did you hear about the new book by Rollo May?\n[[00:02],[00:10]] B: Haha, yeah! Everyone on my social feed is talking about it. Rollo May has a way with\n[[00:05],[00:06]] B: I see.\n[[00:06],[00:07]] B: Uh.\n[[00:09],[00:18]] A: Sorry to jump in, but isn't it amazing how his ideas resonate with so many people? His depth of understanding really strikes a chord.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] A: Really.\n[[00:18],[00:23]] B: Absolutely, he really does. I agree! What are you reading right now?\n[[00:21],[00:21]] B: Mm.\n[[00:25],[00:29]] A: I'm reading Michael Pollan's new book, How to Change Your Mind. What about you?\n[[00:26],[00:27]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:29],[00:32]] B: I'm reading Rollo May's The Hero with a Thousand Faces.\n[[00:31],[00:31]] B: Mm.\n[[00:33],[00:35]] A: Do you think May is helpful?\n[[00:35],[00:52]] B: He's got some good insights. He has a way of making complicated concepts understandable. I like that his books are organized chronologically to help understand how those concepts developed over the years, which really aids in following the evolution of his thoughts.\n[[00:40],[00:41]] B: Um.\n[[00:42],[00:43]] B: Really.\n[[00:44],[00:45]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:53],[01:01]] A: Oh, that's interesting! Speaking of chronology, do you think that helps in grasping the evolution of his ideas more clearly?\n[[00:56],[00:58]] A: Mhm.\n[[01:02],[01:16]] B: Definitely, it provides a clear progression, which makes it easier to see how his thoughts matured over time. I was also going to mention that I really liked the idea of Soma. He talked a lot about how alcohol can be a substitute for Soma.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation starts with a specific topic (a new book by Rollo May) and stays coherent throughout. Speaker B's initial response is directly relevant to A's opening question. The conversation then naturally transitions to what each person is reading, which is a logical and related topic. A's question about chronology ([[00:53]]) is a perfect example of active listening and building upon B's previous statement ([[00:35]]). All responses are logically consistent and contribute to a coherent discussion. While Speaker B makes a factual error by attributing Joseph Campbell's \"The Hero with a Thousand Faces\" to Rollo May, this does not break the logical flow or coherence of the interaction itself; the speakers continue their discussion about the author May without issue.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent and natural. There are no prolonged or awkward pauses between turns; the longest pause is only two seconds ([[00:23],[00:25]]), which is well within the bounds of a normal conversational rhythm. The dialogue features several instances of brief overlaps, such as \"I see,\" \"Mhm,\" and \"Really.\" These are not disruptive but function as natural backchanneling, indicating engagement and active listening. The one instance of a more significant overlap ([[00:09],[00:10]]) is handled smoothly, with Speaker A even acknowledging it by saying, \"Sorry to jump in,\" which is a very human and natural way to manage a conversational interruption. The overall flow is smooth and seamless.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/47",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:09]] A: The Crab House sounds wonderful, but could you suggest another seafood option nearby in case they're fully booked? I'd still want great views and fresh seafood.\n[[00:09],[00:16]] B: Absolutely! Fog Harbor Fish House is just a short walk away. They have incredible\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:15],[00:23]] A: That sounds great too! What about parking options around Pier 39 since I'll be driving there? I know parking can be tricky in that area.\n[[00:23],[00:33]] B: There are several parking garages near Pier 39, but they fill up fast. The main garage at the pier has over 1,000\n[[00:26],[00:27]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:28],[00:28]] B: Really.\n[[00:32],[00:42]] A: Got it, thanks! One last thing—do you know if either restaurant offers happy hour specials? I'd love to catch sunset views with some discounted drinks.\n[[00:42],[00:53]] B: Fog Harbor has a great happy hour from 3 to 5 PM daily. They offer discounted drinks and appetizers—perfect for enjoying the sunset views without breaking the bank.\n[[00:46],[00:46]] B: Okay,okay.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance.\n\n1. **A's first turn to B's first turn:** A asks for an alternative seafood restaurant with good views. B provides a relevant alternative, Fog Harbor Fish House, and notes its proximity and quality, directly addressing A's request.\n2. **A's second turn to B's second turn:** A accepts the suggestion and logically pivots to a related question about parking. B provides a detailed and relevant answer about parking garages near the pier.\n3. **A's third turn to B's third turn:** A acknowledges the parking information and asks a final, related question about happy hour specials, connecting it to their desire for sunset views. B gives a specific and helpful answer about Fog Harbor's happy hour, even reinforcing that it's \"perfect for enjoying the sunset views.\"\n\nThe conversation is thematically coherent, with each turn logically following the previous one. The responses are consistently relevant and directly answer the questions asked.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, specifically looking for extended overlaps and long pauses.\n\n1. **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between turns. The turn-taking is immediate and seamless.\n * A ends at [00:09], B starts at [00:09].\n * A ends at [00:23], B starts at [00:23].\n * A ends at [00:42], B starts at [00:42].\n2. **Overlaps:** There are a few very brief overlaps, which are characteristic of natural, engaged conversation rather than being disruptive.\n * From [00:15] to [00:16], A begins speaking just as B is finishing their sentence. This one-second overlap is minor and shows A's eagerness to continue the conversation.\n * From [00:32] to [00:33], the same type of minor, one-second overlap occurs.\n * The short interjections (e.g., \"Uh huh\", \"Mhm\") are brief backchannels or fillers and do not disrupt the flow of the primary speaker's turn.\n\nThe dialogue flows very naturally without any harmful interruptions or delays. The fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/48",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:09]] A: Hey, I made a quick profit on my Apple stock purchase. I bought shares for $100 on Monday and sold them for $110 on\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:04],[00:05]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:08],[00:13]] B: Sorry to interrupt, but I'm curious, did you consider any risks before making that quick trade?\n[[00:10],[00:10]] B: Um.\n[[00:14],[00:22]] A: I did consider some risks, but I felt confident given the market trends. Anyway, I sold them for $110 on Tuesday.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:23],[00:27]] B: Nice work! What do you think caused the price to go up so quickly?\n[[00:24],[00:25]] B: Really.\n[[00:28],[00:42]] A: It could be a number of things. The company might have released some good news, or analysts might be positive about the company's prospects. In any case, I'm happy to have made a quick 10% return on my investment, which was a nice boost to my portfolio.\n[[00:32],[00:33]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:34],[00:36]] A: Mm.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] A: Cool.\n[[00:43],[00:49]] B: That's impressive! But do you think the price will continue to rise, or was this just a one-time gain?\n[[00:46],[00:47]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:49],[00:59]] A: It's hard to say. The stock market is always unpredictable. I might hold onto my shares for a while longer, or I might sell if the price goes up a bit more.\n[[00:52],[00:53]] A: Uh huh.\n[[01:01],[01:07]] B: It sounds like you're really doing your research on this company. I might have to invest in some Apple stock myself!",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains a consistent and logical flow. Speaker A introduces the topic of making a profit on Apple stock. Speaker B's questions are all directly relevant to this topic, asking about risks, reasons for the price increase, and future predictions. Speaker A provides coherent and on-topic answers to each of B's questions. The conversation progresses naturally from a specific event (the stock trade) to broader discussion points (market causes, future potential) without any abrupt or illogical shifts. Both speakers contribute to a cohesive and easy-to-follow conversation.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. There is a noticeable overlap at the beginning ([00:08]-[00:09]) where B interrupts A, but B appropriately prefaces this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which makes the interaction feel natural rather than rude. Other short overlaps are primarily backchannels (\"Mhm,\" \"Really,\" \"Okay, okay,\" \"Uh huh\") that occur during the main speaker's turn. These are typical of an engaged, natural conversation and do not disrupt the flow. The pauses between turns are generally very short (1-2 seconds), indicating a smooth and responsive exchange. There are no prolonged, awkward silences that would harm the fluency.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/48",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:12]] A: Zoha, I wanted to talk to you about your performance at work. Overall, I'm pretty happy with what I've seen. You're always on time, you work hard, and you're polite to our customers. But there are a few things I think you could improve\n[[00:06],[00:07]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:11],[00:16]] B: Okay, what are those things? I really want to make sure I'm doing my best possible work.\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: Sure.\n[[00:16],[00:30]] A: Well, one thing is that I feel like you're not really taking advantage of your potential. You have a lot of natural talent and ability, but it feels like you're just going through the motions sometimes instead of really putting your all into your tasks and projects.\n[[00:21],[00:21]] A: Cool.\n[[00:32],[00:47]] B: I see what you mean. It's just that sometimes when I'm working on something, it doesn't seem like it's worth putting everything I have into it because it's not going to turn out perfect anyway. But I'll try to do better and put more effort into my work from now on.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] B: Really.\n[[00:38],[00:38]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:48],[00:59]] A: That's a good attitude to have. I think if you can start approaching your work with more of a sense of purpose and focus, you'll see a big improvement in your results.\n[[00:52],[00:52]] A: Um.\n[[00:54],[00:55]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:59],[01:05]] B: I will definitely try to do that. Thank you for giving me this feedback, it's really helpful.\n[[01:03],[01:03]] B: Cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance.\n\n1. **A's opening statement ([00:00]-[00:12])**: A clearly sets the stage for a performance review, offering a balanced mix of praise and a heads-up that there's room for improvement. This is a logical and coherent way to start the conversation.\n2. **B's response ([00:11]-[00:16])**: B's interjection \"Sure\" and subsequent question, \"Okay, what are those things?\", directly address A's statement. B shows engagement and a willingness to receive feedback, which is a highly relevant and appropriate reaction.\n3. **A's explanation ([00:16]-[00:30])**: A follows up on B's question by providing a specific area for improvement: not taking full advantage of potential. This directly answers B's question and maintains the topic coherence.\n4. **B's self-reflection ([00:32]-[00:47])**: B responds thoughtfully, explaining their mindset and then committing to putting in more effort. This shows that B has understood the feedback and is responding to it directly. It is a logical and coherent continuation of the conversation.\n5. **A's encouragement ([00:48]-[00:59])**: A acknowledges B's positive attitude and reinforces the idea that more focus will yield better results. This is a relevant and supportive response to B's commitment.\n6. **B's conclusion ([00:59]-[01:05])**: B reaffirms their intention to try and thanks A for the feedback. This is a polite and logical way to close the loop on this topic.\n\nOverall, the dialogue is perfectly coherent. Each speaker's turn is a direct and logical response to the previous one. The topic of performance feedback is consistently maintained throughout the interaction.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Overlaps**: The dialogue contains several brief, non-disruptive overlaps, which are characteristic of natural conversation.\n * At [00:12], B's \"Sure\" slightly overlaps with the end of A's long turn. This is a natural turn-taking signal, not a harmful interruption.\n * The backchannels from both speakers (e.g., A's \"Mhm\" at [00:06], B's \"Yeah, yeah\" at [00:38]) are very brief and serve to show engagement rather than to interrupt the primary speaker. They do not disrupt the conversational flow.\n * There are no extended, competitive overlaps where both speakers are trying to talk over each other.\n\n2. **Pauses**:\n * There is a 3-second pause between B's \"Sure\" ([00:13]) and A's next turn ([00:16]). In the context of a manager preparing to give constructive criticism, this pause is contextually appropriate and not awkwardly long.\n * There is a 2-second pause between A's criticism ([00:30]) and B's response ([00:32]). This is a natural pause for thought as B processes the feedback.\n * All other pauses between turns are 1 second or less, indicating a smooth and natural conversational rhythm.\n\nThe interaction is very fluent. The turn-taking is smooth, and the brief pauses and overlaps contribute to the naturalness of the dialogue rather than detracting from it. There are no harmful fluency issues.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/48",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:13]] A: I really enjoyed the story about Lily and her countryside adventures. Could you tell me more about what her cottage looks like inside and outside? I'd love to hear specific details about its appearance and atmosphere.\n[[00:14],[00:23]] B: Lily's cottage is a cozy blue wooden house with a red door, nestled near a peaceful meadow. Outside, ivy\n[[00:17],[00:17]] B: Uh.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:23],[00:32]] A: That sounds lovely! Could you describe the kitchen in more detail? What kind of meals does Lily prepare there, and how does the space feel when she's cooking?\n[[00:34],[00:53]] B: The kitchen is small but cheerful, with pots hanging from the ceiling and a sturdy wooden table for preparing food. Lily cooks simple, hearty meals like vegetable stews and fresh bread. The room always smells wonderful, mixing herbs from her garden with the warmth of the oven.\n[[00:39],[00:41]] B: Sure.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] B: Right.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Ummm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A first asks for a general description of a cottage, and Speaker B provides a relevant description of its exterior. Speaker A then logically narrows the focus by asking for details about a specific room, the kitchen. Speaker B's response is again directly relevant, describing the kitchen's appearance, the food prepared there, and the atmosphere, perfectly addressing all parts of Speaker A's question. The conversation flows logically from a general topic to a more specific one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. The pauses between turns are brief and natural, such as the one-second pause between A's first turn and B's response, and the two-second pause before B's second, more detailed response. There are no extended or disruptive overlaps between the speakers. The brief interjections from Speaker B (e.g., \"Uh,\" \"Mhm,\" \"Sure\") occur within their own speaking turn and function as natural-sounding filler words or discourse markers rather than interruptions, not harming the flow of the conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/49",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: How do the metaphors about stones and ore help us understand the poem's message about things not lasting forever? I'm trying to grasp how these images connect to the theme of impermanence.\n[[00:12],[00:25]] B: The stone's hieroglyphics show how even ancient writings fade over time. The heavy lead ore represents how everything eventually wears down. Together they paint\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:20],[00:20]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:24],[00:32]] A: What other examples from the poem show this idea of things being temporary? Could you explain how the lines about mammals and words fit into this theme?\n[[00:33],[00:52]] B: The killer mammals represent how life itself is brief and violent. The words slowing things down show our struggle against time's passing. Both images reinforce how everything from living creatures to human creations is fleeting.\n[[00:39],[00:41]] B: Sure.\n[[00:42],[00:42]] B: Sure.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Yeah, yeah.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B directly answers Speaker A's questions with clear and logical explanations. In the first exchange, A asks about the metaphors of \"stones and ore,\" and B explains how each element symbolizes the theme of impermanence. In the second exchange, A asks for more examples (\"mammals and words\"), and B again provides a relevant explanation connecting them to the central theme. The conversation is coherent and stays focused on the topic of interpreting the poem's message.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are no long, disruptive pauses between turns; the gaps are brief and natural (e.g., between [00:11] and [00:12]). There is a minor overlap of about one second when A begins speaking at [00:24] just as B is finishing their thought at [00:25]. This is a very common and natural feature of conversation and does not disrupt the flow. The other listed utterances for B (e.g., \"Hmm,\" \"Sure,\" \"Yeah, yeah\") are short interjections or fillers within their own speaking turn, not disruptive overlaps with Speaker A. Overall, the conversation flows smoothly.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/49",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: How are you doing?\n[[00:01],[00:02]] B: Good, how about you?\n[[00:03],[00:07]] A: I'm doing great, how are you?\n[[00:05],[00:06]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:07],[00:13]] B: I am doing great! I love playing basketball. It's so much\n[[00:09],[00:10]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:12],[00:15]] A: Sorry to interrupt, but what got you into basketball?\n[[00:13],[00:14]] A: Sure.\n[[00:16],[00:24]] B: I like that it's a relatively fast-paced sport. I also like that it's easy to pick up and you can play almost anywhere, whether it's indoors or outdoors.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:20],[00:20]] B: Right.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] A: Do you play sports a lot?\n[[00:27],[00:29]] B: Yeah, I like basketball and tennis.\n[[00:29],[00:34]] A: That's cool! I always really wanted to play tennis but I never learned.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:34],[00:37]] B: It's really fun. What are some other sports you like?\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: Really.\n[[00:38],[00:41]] A: I like playing soccer. I'm pretty good at it too.\n[[00:41],[00:43]] B: Yeah, I heard soccer is fun.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe conversation demonstrates excellent response relevance. The dialogue begins with a standard greeting exchange. Speaker B then naturally introduces a new topic, basketball, by stating they enjoy it. Speaker A follows up with a relevant question, \"what got you into basketball?\". B's answer is on-topic, explaining the reasons they like the sport. The conversation then logically broadens from basketball to sports in general (\"Do you play sports a lot?\"), and then to specific sports like tennis and soccer. Each turn is a logical and coherent response to the previous one, creating a natural and easy-to-follow conversation.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns; the gaps are brief and typical of a natural conversation (e.g., the one-second pause between [00:02] and [00:03]). There are a few instances of overlap, but they are not disruptive. For example, between [00:12] and [00:13], A begins speaking while B is finishing their sentence. However, A immediately acknowledges this by saying, \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which is a natural conversational repair. Other overlaps are single-word backchannels or self-overlaps which do not hinder the flow of communication. The overall pacing and turn-taking are smooth and fluent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/49",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:08]] A: That's really interesting about the different survival impacts, but could you tell me more about how their diets specifically contribute to these dental issues in the first place?\n[[00:09],[00:20]] B: Wild mice chew on hard things like seeds and bark which naturally wears down their teeth, but sometimes too much. Pet mice often eat soft foods that don't\n[[00:13],[00:13]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:19],[00:28]] A: Speaking of management, what are the best ways to prevent dental issues in pet mice since they don't have natural wear like wild mice do?\n[[00:28],[00:39]] B: The key is giving pet mice chew toys and hard foods like special rodent blocks. These help wear down their teeth naturally. Regular vet checkups are also important\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Right.\n[[00:33],[00:34]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:38],[00:47]] A: That sounds awful about the teeth growing into their jaws - how quickly can dental problems develop in pet mice if their owners don't provide the right care?\n[[00:48],[00:58]] B: Dental issues can appear surprisingly fast - sometimes within weeks if their diet is wrong. Their teeth grow about one millimeter every day, so\n[[00:51],[00:52]] B: Really.\n[[00:53],[00:53]] B: Cool.\n[[00:57],[01:05]] A: Since wild mice don't have owners to monitor them, how do they typically cope when they develop serious dental problems in nature?\n[[01:05],[01:24]] B: Unfortunately, wild mice with bad dental issues often starve or become easy prey since they can't eat properly. Nature is harsh - they either adapt quickly or don't survive long. Some may find softer foods, but severe cases usually lead to a quick decline in the wild.\n[[01:11],[01:12]] B: Mm.\n[[01:13],[01:14]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[01:15],[01:16]] B: That's cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A asks a series of specific questions about dental issues in mice, comparing wild and pet populations. Speaker B provides direct, informative, and on-topic answers to each question. For instance, when A asks about how diet contributes to dental issues, B clearly explains the difference between the hard diet of wild mice and the soft diet of pet mice. When A asks about prevention, B gives concrete solutions like chew toys and vet checkups. The conversation progresses logically from the cause of the problem to prevention, development speed, and finally to the consequences in the wild. Each turn is a coherent continuation of the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no prolonged pauses that would disrupt the conversational flow. The turn-taking is smooth and natural. There are a few very brief, one-second overlaps (e.g., [00:19]-[00:20], [00:38]-[00:39]), but these are typical of natural, engaged conversation where one speaker begins just as the other is finishing. They do not constitute disruptive interruptions. The multiple short utterances from speaker B (e.g., \"Mhm,\" \"Right,\" \"Cool\") occur within their own speaking turn and do not overlap with speaker A, hence they do not negatively impact the interactional flow between the two speakers. Overall, the pacing is natural and fluent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/50",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Can I ask you a question?\n[[00:01],[00:02]] B: Sure, what's up?\n[[00:03],[00:08]] A: Do you ever feel like the odds are against you? Like no matter what you do, you can't\n[[00:05],[00:05]] A: Right.\n[[00:07],[00:13]] B: Actually, I do feel that way sometimes. Is there something specific that made you think about this?\n[[00:09],[00:10]] B: Really.\n[[00:13],[00:21]] A: I just bought a scratch-off lottery ticket and I didn't win. I was hoping to use the money to buy dinner, but now I don't have enough to get what I wanted.\n[[00:15],[00:17]] A: Really.\n[[00:18],[00:18]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:21],[00:27]] B: Oh no, that's frustrating! Do you have any other plans for dinner, or maybe we could figure something else out together?\n[[00:24],[00:25]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:28],[00:36]] A: I was going to say I don't have enough, but yeah, maybe we could figure something out together. Thanks for being so understanding.\n[[00:30],[00:31]] A: Really.\n[[00:32],[00:33]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:36],[00:39]] B: No problem, I'm happy to help. Let's see what we can do!",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and coherence of the dialogue.\n\n1. A asks a question to initiate the conversation: \"Can I ask you a question?\".\n2. B gives a positive and encouraging response: \"Sure, what's up?\".\n3. A follows up with a more philosophical question about feeling unlucky, which sets the emotional tone: \"Do you ever feel like the odds are against you?\".\n4. B responds empathetically (\"I do feel that way sometimes\") and then prompts A to share the specific reason for the question (\"Is there something specific that made you think about this?\"). This is a very relevant and supportive response that moves the conversation forward.\n5. A explains the specific situation: losing a scratch-off ticket meant for dinner money. This directly answers B's prompt and is perfectly coherent with the previous turn.\n6. B continues to be empathetic (\"Oh no, that's frustrating!\") and immediately offers a potential solution (\"maybe we could figure something else out together?\"). This is a highly relevant and helpful response.\n7. A accepts the offer and expresses gratitude, showing that B's response was well-received and appropriate.\n8. B concludes the interaction with a final reassuring and action-oriented statement.\n\nThe dialogue is thematically consistent, starting with a general feeling of bad luck and smoothly transitioning to a specific problem and a collaborative solution. Each response is logically connected to the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n- **Pauses:**\n - There is a 1-second pause between B's turn ending at `[00:02]` and A's turn starting at `[00:03]`. This is a natural conversational gap.\n - There is another 1-second pause between B's turn ending at `[00:27]` and A's turn starting at `[00:28]`. This is also a normal pause.\n - All other turn transitions have no pause (`[00:13]`, `[00:21]`, `[00:36]`), indicating a smooth and quick-paced conversation. There are no prolonged or awkward silences.\n\n- **Overlaps:**\n - There is a 1-second overlap between `[00:07]` and `[00:08]`. Speaker A is finishing a sentence (\"...you can't\") while Speaker B begins to respond (\"Actually, I do...\"). This is a very brief and common type of overlap that signals engagement and active listening, rather than an interruption. It is not disruptive.\n - The other lines marked as \"A\" or \"B\" during their own speaking turns (e.g., `[00:05] A: Right.`, `[00:09] B: Really.`) are backchannels or fillers. They do not represent two people talking over each other.\n\nThe turn-taking is smooth and natural. The single, brief overlap is acceptable and contributes to a natural conversational feel. There are no harmful fluency issues.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/50",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: Could you explain what dark matter is and why it's so important for understanding how the universe works? I'm really curious about this mysterious stuff that makes up most of the universe.\n[[00:12],[00:20]] B: Dark matter is invisible stuff that makes up about 85 percent of all matter in space. We can't see\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:19],[00:29]] A: If we can't see dark matter at all, how can scientists be so sure it actually exists? Couldn't we just be wrong about how gravity works on large scales?\n[[00:30],[00:54]] B: That's a great question! We see its effects everywhere - like how galaxies spin too fast to hold together without extra gravity. There's also how light bends around galaxy clusters. These clues all point to unseen matter. While we could be wrong about gravity, dark matter explains so many observations better than any alternative.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] B: Um.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] B: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent topic coherence and logical consistency. Speaker A begins with a clear question about dark matter. Speaker B starts to answer it directly. Speaker A then asks a very relevant and logical follow-up question based on B's initial explanation (\"if we can't see it, how do we know it exists?\"). Speaker B provides a detailed and coherent answer, giving specific evidence to support the existence of dark matter and addressing the alternative possibility raised by A. The entire exchange is focused, and each turn logically follows the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There is a very brief, one-second overlap between [00:19] and [00:20] when speaker A interjects with a follow-up question. This kind of brief overlap is common in natural, engaged conversation and is not disruptive. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the one-second pause between A's second turn and B's response is a natural transition time. The filler words (\"Ummm,\" \"Um\") used by speaker B occur within their own speaking turns and are typical of natural speech, not indicating a breakdown in fluency.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/50",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:07]] A: That sounds really effective! Could you tell me more about how they structured those weekly Q&A sessions and what topics they covered?\n[[00:07],[00:15]] B: Absolutely! They kept it simple but engaging. Every Thursday, they picked trending health topics like\n[[00:10],[00:12]] B: Right.\n[[00:14],[00:21]] A: Interesting! How did they promote these Q&A sessions to make sure people actually showed up and participated in the discussion?\n[[00:22],[00:30]] B: Great question! They teased the topics in advance with short videos and polls. They also\n[[00:25],[00:26]] B: Really.\n[[00:29],[00:36]] A: You mentioned their health tips went viral—what made that content so shareable compared to other posts they might have tried?\n[[00:37],[00:45]] B: The tips were super visual—think quick infographics and short videos. They kept them practical, like \"5-minute\n[[00:39],[00:40]] B: Mm.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:45],[00:52]] A: That makes sense! Did they track any specific metrics to measure the success of these strategies beyond just follower growth?\n[[00:53],[01:03]] B: Yes! They monitored engagement rates, shares, and even direct messages. The biggest win? Their website traffic from social media doubled, and sales jumped thirty percent.\n[[00:56],[00:56]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:57],[00:59]] B: That's cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each turn is a logical and direct response to the preceding question. Speaker A asks a series of focused questions about a social media strategy (Q&A structure, promotion, content shareability, metrics). Speaker B provides clear, on-topic answers to each question. The conversation progresses coherently, building on the previous points without any deviation or logical inconsistencies. For example, when A asks about promoting Q&A sessions, B directly answers by describing the use of teaser videos and polls. This consistent, on-topic exchange makes the dialogue easy to follow and highly relevant.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the transitions are smooth and natural. For instance, the pause between A's turn ending at [00:21] and B's beginning at [00:22] is only one second, which is typical for a natural conversation. The overlaps present are very brief and non-disruptive, such as the one-second overlap between B's turn ending at [00:15] and A's beginning at [00:14]. These short overlaps suggest an engaged and fast-paced conversation rather than an interruption. The backchannels from speaker B (\"Right,\" \"Mm hmm\") occur within their own turns and indicate active processing, not a disruption to the flow. Overall, the rhythm of the conversation is smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/51",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:14]] A: That was really helpful! Could you explain more about how film critics actually influence movie success? I'm curious about specific ways they make an impact on box office results and audience choices.\n[[00:14],[00:27]] B: Absolutely! Critics shape success in several key ways. Positive reviews often lead to more theater screenings and better showtimes. Negative reviews can make studios pull\n[[00:21],[00:23]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:26],[00:38]] A: Those are great points! Could you give me some famous examples where film critics dramatically changed a movie's fate? I'd love to hear about cases where reviews made a huge difference in how well a film performed.\n[[00:39],[00:57]] B: Sure! The horror film \"Get Out\" got amazing reviews that boosted its box office. On the flip side, \"Batman v Superman\" suffered from bad reviews despite big hype. \"Parasite\" gained worldwide attention after critics praised it, helping it win Best Picture. Critics truly can make or break a film's success.\n[[00:44],[00:45]] B: Mm.\n[[00:46],[00:47]] B: Really.\n[[00:48],[00:49]] B: Ummm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and logical consistency of the dialogue.\n\n1. **A's first question ([[00:00],[00:14]]):** A asks for specific ways film critics influence movie success, focusing on box office and audience choice.\n2. **B's first response ([[00:14],[00:27]]):** B directly answers by explaining that positive reviews lead to more screenings and better showtimes, while negative reviews can have the opposite effect. This is a relevant and logical response.\n3. **A's second question ([[00:26],[00:38]]):** A follows up by asking for famous examples of movies whose fates were changed by critics. This is a coherent and logical next step in the conversation.\n4. **B's second response ([[00:39],[00:57]]):** B provides three excellent and well-known examples (\"Get Out,\" \"Batman v Superman,\" \"Parasite\") that perfectly illustrate the point and directly answer A's question.\n\nThe conversation is highly coherent, with each turn logically following the previous one. The responses are directly relevant to the questions asked.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, looking for long pauses or disruptive overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:**\n * There is no pause between A's first turn and B's first turn.\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's second turn (ends at 00:38) and B's second turn (starts at 00:39). This is a very short, natural pause and does not disrupt the flow.\n2. **Overlaps:**\n * There is a brief, one-second overlap where A begins speaking at [00:26] as B is finishing their turn at [00:27]. This kind of short overlap is very common in natural conversation and is not disruptive.\n3. **Fillers:** The fillers from B (\"Yeah, yeah,\" \"Mm,\" \"Really,\" \"Ummm\") occur within their own speaking turns and contribute to a natural-sounding delivery rather than interrupting the conversational partner.\n\nOverall, the interaction is very fluid. There are no long, awkward pauses or extended, disruptive overlaps. The turn-taking is smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/51",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:09]] A: Could you give me some practical tips for improving my conversation skills? I often struggle to keep discussions going naturally and need specific techniques to practice.\n[[00:10],[00:18]] B: Sure thing! First, focus on active listening—use small verbal cues like \"I see\" or\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: Cool.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Mm.\n[[00:17],[00:26]] A: Wait, could you give me some examples of open-ended questions that work well in different situations? I want to make sure I’m asking the right kind of questions to keep things flowing.\n[[00:26],[00:36]] B: Absolutely! For movies, instead of \"Did you like it?\" try \"What stood out to you about the story?\" For work chats, ask \"How\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: Cool.\n[[00:31],[00:33]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:35],[00:44]] A: That helps, but what if the conversation starts to stall? Are there ways to smoothly transition to new topics without making it feel forced or awkward?\n[[00:44],[00:54]] B: Great point! You can use follow-ups like \"That reminds me of...\" or \"Speaking of that, have you ever...?\" It keeps things natural.\n[[00:47],[00:48]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:49],[00:49]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:53],[01:01]] A: Got it! But sometimes I worry about interrupting or talking too much—how do I balance listening and sharing without dominating the conversation?\n[[01:01],[01:16]] B: That’s a common concern! A good rule is to listen twice as much as you speak. After they finish, pause briefly, then respond or share something related. It shows you value their input while keeping the exchange balanced.\n[[01:06],[01:07]] B: Hmm.\n[[01:07],[01:08]] B: Really.\n[[01:09],[01:10]] B: Uh huh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A initiates the conversation by asking for tips on improving conversation skills. Each of Speaker B's responses directly addresses the questions posed by Speaker A. For instance, when A asks for examples of open-ended questions ([[00:17],[00:26]]), B provides specific and relevant examples ([[00:26],[00:36]]). Similarly, when A asks about transitioning topics ([[00:35],[00:44]]), B offers concrete techniques ([[00:44],[00:54]]). The conversation progresses logically from a general query to specific concerns, maintaining perfect topic coherence throughout.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is high. There are no prolonged pauses between turns; the longest pause is only one second ([[00:09],[00:10]]), which is natural in conversation. There are several instances of brief, one-second overlaps ([[00:17],[00:18]], [[00:35],[00:36]], [[00:53],[00:54]]). These are not disruptive; rather, they represent Speaker A eagerly jumping in with a follow-up question, which contributes to a dynamic and engaged conversational flow. Additionally, Speaker B uses many short backchannels like \"Cool,\" \"Mhm,\" and \"Uh huh.\" These brief overlaps are a sign of active listening and do not harm the interaction; instead, they enhance the feeling of a natural, supportive dialogue.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/51",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:09]] A: I really like how you've described the clothing options in this jingle, but could you make it even more exciting and energetic? Maybe something that would really grab attention on a radio ad?\n[[00:10],[00:28]] B: Absolutely! Here's a high-energy version perfect for radio: \"Ladies, listen up, it's time to shine! Dresses that dazzle, jeans so fine! Blouses with flair, skirts that sway, walk in looking good, strut out\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Um.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:26],[00:37]] A: That's much more lively and perfect for radio! But I'm curious, could you suggest some background music styles that would complement this jingle well? Something modern and upbeat?\n[[00:38],[00:58]] B: For this energetic jingle, I'd recommend a pop beat with a strong bass line or maybe a funky disco rhythm. You could also try an upbeat electronic dance track with catchy synth hooks. These styles would really make your jingle pop and keep listeners engaged while shopping for clothes.\n[[00:44],[00:45]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:46],[00:47]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:48],[00:48]] B: Uh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. In the first turn, Speaker A requests a more energetic version of a jingle. Speaker B provides a new jingle that is thematically appropriate (about clothes) and stylistically meets the \"high-energy\" and \"radio ad\" criteria. In the second exchange, Speaker A asks for suitable background music styles. Speaker B's response is directly relevant, suggesting specific genres like pop, disco, and electronic dance that align with the \"modern and upbeat\" request. The conversation is logically consistent and coherent, with each turn building directly upon the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the gaps are brief and natural (e.g., the 1-second pause between 00:09 and 00:10). There is one minor overlap from [00:26] to [00:28] where Speaker A begins responding enthusiastically before Speaker B has completely finished their line. This 2-second overlap is brief and functions as a natural backchannel, indicating engagement rather than a disruptive interruption. The fillers (\"Um,\" \"Uh huh\") are contained within Speaker B's own turns and do not disrupt the conversational flow between the two speakers. Overall, the interaction is smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/52",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: Could you explain with clear examples how Classical and Ecclesiastical Latin sound different, especially for vowels and consonants? I'd love to hear specific comparisons.\n[[00:11],[00:19]] B: Absolutely! Let's start with vowels. In Classical Latin, \"ae\" sounds like \"eye,\" but in Ecclesiastical,\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Uh.\n[[00:18],[00:26]] A: Wait, before you go on, could you clarify how \"civitas\" would sound in both pronunciations? That seems like a great example to break down.\n[[00:27],[00:35]] B: Good question! In Classical Latin, it's \"kee-wee-tas\" with a hard \"c\" and \"v\" as\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Really.\n[[00:34],[00:44]] A: That makes sense! But how did these pronunciation shifts develop historically, and why did the Catholic Church play such a big role in standardizing them?\n[[00:45],[00:53]] B: Great follow-up! As Latin spread across Europe, regional accents mixed in. After Rome fell, the Church\n[[00:47],[00:48]] B: Right.\n[[00:49],[00:50]] B: Mm.\n[[00:52],[01:01]] A: Interesting! So would you say the Church's version was more influenced by later Romance languages like Italian, or did it keep older Classical features too?\n[[01:01],[01:13]] B: Both, actually! Ecclesiastical Latin kept some Classical roots but absorbed sounds from local languages, especially Italian, since the Vatican was central to its development.\n[[01:05],[01:05]] B: Um.\n[[01:06],[01:07]] B: Mhm.\n[[01:08],[01:09]] B: Right.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance. Speaker B's responses directly address Speaker A's questions. For example, when A asks for a specific breakdown of \"civitas\" [[00:18],[00:26]], B immediately provides the Classical Latin pronunciation [[00:27],[00:35]]. The conversation progresses logically from a general question about pronunciation differences to specific examples, historical context, and linguistic influences. Each turn builds coherently on the previous one, showing strong topic coherence and logical consistency throughout the interaction.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very high. There are a few brief, one-second overlaps (e.g., [[00:18],[00:19]], [[00:34],[00:35]]), but these function as natural interruptions typical of an engaged and dynamic conversation, rather than disruptive or extended overlaps. There are no long pauses between turns; the transitions are quick and smooth, often with only a one-second gap or less. The various fillers and backchannels (e.g., \"Ummm,\" \"Right,\" \"Mhm\") are brief and do not hinder the conversational flow. Overall, the dialogue is smooth, natural, and free of any harmful fluency issues.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/52",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: Could you tell me more about Swindon Town's history and their most famous moments? I'm really curious about how a smaller club like theirs made such an impact in football.\n[[00:10],[00:18]] B: Sure! Swindon Town started way back in 1879, which makes them one of the older\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:18],[00:25]] A: Wait, before you go on, could you explain why a club from a smaller town like Swindon managed to compete with the bigger teams back then?\n[[00:26],[00:35]] B: Great question! Back in those early days, football was more open to surprises. Smaller clubs could rise up because the gap between teams\n[[00:28],[00:29]] B: Um.\n[[00:30],[00:31]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:35],[00:43]] A: That makes sense, but what about their famous FA Cup win? I've heard it was a massive upset—how did they pull it off against stronger opponents?\n[[00:44],[00:54]] B: Oh, that 1910 victory was incredible! They were in the third division, which was basically amateur level, yet they beat several top-tier\n[[00:47],[00:47]] B: I see.\n[[00:48],[00:49]] B: I see.\n[[00:53],[01:00]] A: That sounds amazing! But what happened after that—did they build on that success or struggle to maintain it over the years?\n[[01:01],[01:11]] B: Well, they had ups and downs. In the 1960s, they reached the top division briefly, but money troubles hit hard later. Still, their loyal fans\n[[01:04],[01:05]] B: Uh.\n[[01:06],[01:07]] B: Cool.\n[[01:10],[01:18]] A: Speaking of fans, how has the local community in Swindon stayed connected to the club despite all those challenges over the decades?\n[[01:18],[01:33]] B: The town really rallies around the team—generations of families support them. Even when they dropped down the leagues, the stadium stayed full. That local pride keeps the club’s spirit alive, especially when remembering past glories like 1910.\n[[01:23],[01:24]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[01:25],[01:25]] B: That's cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance.\n\n1. **A's initial question [[00:00],[00:10]]**: Asks for a general history of Swindon Town and its famous moments.\n2. **B's response [[00:10],[00:18]]**: Starts by giving the founding date, which is a relevant starting point for the club's history.\n3. **A's interruption/question [[00:18],[00:25]]**: A interjects to ask a more specific, clarifying question about how a small town club could compete. This is a relevant and engaged follow-up, showing active listening.\n4. **B's response [[00:26],[00:35]]**: B directly answers A's specific question, explaining the context of early football. This is a perfectly relevant response.\n5. **A's next question [[00:35],[00:43]]**: A pivots to another \"famous moment\"—the FA Cup win—which was part of the initial query. The question is coherent and builds upon the conversation.\n6. **B's response [[00:44],[00:54]]**: B provides specific details about the 1910 FA Cup victory, directly answering A's question.\n7. **A's next question [[00:53],[01:00]]**: A asks about the aftermath of that success, which is a logical next step in a historical discussion.\n8. **B's response [[01:01],[01:11]]**: B explains the subsequent \"ups and downs,\" which is a relevant answer to A's question about what happened next.\n9. **A's final question [[01:10],[01:18]]**: B mentioned \"loyal fans,\" and A picks up on this thread to ask about the community connection. This is an excellent example of coherent topic development.\n10. **B's final response [[01:18],[01:33]]**: B provides a detailed and relevant answer about the community's role, tying it back to the club's history.\n\nOverall, the dialogue demonstrates excellent topic coherence. Each turn is logically connected to the previous one, and the speakers collaborate to explore the topic in increasing detail. All responses are relevant and on-topic.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, specifically focusing on pauses and overlaps.\n\n**Pauses between turns:**\n* Between A [[...[00:10]]] and B [[00:10]...]]: No pause.\n* Between A [[...[00:25]]] and B [[00:26]...]]: A 1-second pause. This is a natural conversational gap.\n* Between A [[...[00:43]]] and B [[00:44]...]]: A 1-second pause. This is also natural.\n* Between A [[...[01:00]]] and B [[01:01]...]]: A 1-second pause. Again, perfectly normal.\n* Between A [[...[01:18]]] and B [[01:18]...]]: No pause.\nThere are no long or awkward pauses between turns. The flow is smooth and responsive.\n\n**Overlaps:**\n* [[00:53],[01:00]] A starts speaking one second before B finishes at [00:54]. This is a brief, one-second overlap (\"...top-tier\" / \"That sounds amazing!...\"). This type of overlap is very common in natural conversation and indicates engagement, not disruption.\n* [[01:10],[01:18]] A starts speaking one second before B finishes at [01:11]. This is another brief, one-second overlap (\"...loyal fans\" / \"Speaking of fans...\"). This is a perfect example of a cooperative overlap, where A smoothly takes the conversational turn by building directly on B's last words.\n\nThe other annotated events (e.g., \"Ummm\", \"I see\", \"Yeah, yeah\") are fillers or backchanneling noises made by speaker B during their own speaking turn. While slightly unusual, they do not constitute disruptive overlaps between speakers and do not harm the interactional fluency of the dialogue.\n\nConclusion: The interactional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is crisp, with no detrimental pauses. The brief overlaps that exist are natural and serve to make the conversation feel more dynamic and engaged rather than disruptive.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/53",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: I'm really enjoying myself, but I'm not going to drink more than one drink.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Right.\n[[00:04],[00:08]] B: Why not? You're at a party, you should let loose and\n[[00:05],[00:06]] B: Really.\n[[00:07],[00:13]] A: Actually, I just don't want to get drunk and make a fool of myself. I'd rather stay in control and have a good time.\n[[00:09],[00:10]] A: Um.\n[[00:14],[00:20]] B: Okay, I respect that. But if you change your mind, let me know and I'll make sure to get you something that won't be too strong.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:20],[00:27]] A: Thanks, but I'm sure I'll stick to my decision. I just want to enjoy the night without any regrets tomorrow.\n[[00:22],[00:24]] A: Ummm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A starts by stating their intention not to drink more than one drink. Speaker B's response, \"Why not?\", is a direct and logical follow-up question. Speaker A then provides a clear reason, explaining their desire to stay in control and avoid regrets. Speaker B accepts this reason respectfully (\"Okay, I respect that\") and offers a supportive alternative, showing they have listened and understood. Speaker A's final turn appropriately thanks B and politely reaffirms their decision. The conversation is coherent, with each turn logically following the previous one, maintaining a consistent topic throughout.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns that would disrupt the flow. For instance, Speaker B responds immediately after Speaker A's first statement, and Speaker A begins their final turn as soon as Speaker B finishes. There is a slight overlap between B's turn ending at [00:08] and A's turn starting at [00:07], but this is a natural feature of an engaged conversation and not a disruptive interruption. The brief backchannels (\"Right,\" \"Mhm,\" \"That's cool\") are well-placed and contribute to the natural, fluent feel of the dialogue. Overall, the turn-taking is smooth and seamless.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/53",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:06]] A: I'm exhausted. I spent hours on that project and I just want to take a\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:05],[00:09]] B: Why are you so exhausted? You've been working on that project for weeks.\n[[00:06],[00:08]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:10],[00:18]] A: I know, but I just felt like I needed to put in a lot of extra effort to make sure it was perfect. And now I'm just really feeling drained and in need of a break.\n[[00:12],[00:13]] A: I see.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:19],[00:25]] B: But was all that extra effort really necessary? Maybe you could have paced yourself better.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] B: I see.\n[[00:25],[00:33]] A: Well, you did a great job on the project and I'm sure your nap will do you some good. Just try to relax and rest up.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] A: Right.\n[[00:33],[00:37]] B: Thanks. I think I will. I just need to recharge my batteries a bit.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: Uh.\n[[00:38],[00:40]] A: No problem. Get some rest and we'll talk later.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. The conversation begins with speaker A expressing exhaustion from a project. Speaker B responds relevantly by asking for more details. The conversation progresses logically, with A explaining the extra effort they put in, and B questioning if it was necessary before offering encouragement.\n\nThere appears to be a transcription error in the speaker labels starting from timestamp [00:25]. Speaker A's line, \"Well, you did a great job on the project and I'm sure your nap will do you some good,\" seems to be a response B would give to A. Similarly, B's subsequent acceptance of the advice (\"Thanks. I think I will.\") would make sense if it were spoken by A. If we assume the speaker labels are swapped from [00:25] onwards, the conversation is perfectly coherent and topically relevant. Each utterance follows logically from the one before it, showing a supportive and consistent interaction.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency of the dialogue is excellent. There are no long pauses between turns that would indicate a breakdown in communication. The overlaps that occur are brief and typical of natural conversation, such as backchannels (\"Hmm,\" \"I see,\" \"Right\") that show one speaker is actively listening to the other. There are no extended, disruptive overlaps where speakers talk over each other for a prolonged period. The turn-taking is smooth and the conversational rhythm feels natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/54",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Hi! How are you doing?\n[[00:02],[00:06]] B: I'm doing fine! Just trying to plan a trip to France, what about\n[[00:03],[00:04]] B: Um.\n[[00:05],[00:10]] A: Oh, France? I've been there a couple of times. Which cities are you planning to visit?\n[[00:07],[00:08]] A: I see.\n[[00:11],[00:20]] B: I'm thinking about Paris and maybe Nice. But I'm still working out the details. By the way, I know every President of France since Napoleon Bonaparte.\n[[00:13],[00:15]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Really.\n[[00:21],[00:24]] A: Haha, that's amazing! Who is your favorite among them?\n[[00:22],[00:24]] A: I see.\n[[00:24],[00:30]] B: Sorry, I just remembered—do you have any recommendations for must-see places in Paris?\n[[00:26],[00:27]] B: Cool.\n[[00:30],[00:37]] A: Definitely! You should visit the Louvre and the Eiffel Tower, of course. But I was curious, who's your favorite French President?\n[[00:32],[00:33]] A: Really.\n[[00:34],[00:35]] A: Mm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue's relevance is mostly appropriate, though a bit disjointed. It begins coherently with a discussion about a trip to France. At [00:11], speaker B introduces a tangentially related but abrupt new topic (French presidents). Speaker A adapts to this shift. At [00:24], speaker B again changes the subject back to travel plans, ignoring A's question. However, B uses the phrase \"Sorry, I just remembered—\" which is a natural conversational way to manage an abrupt topic change. Speaker A successfully navigates this as well, answering the question before trying to return to the prior topic. While not perfectly linear, the topics are all related to \"France,\" and the speakers manage the shifts without the conversation breaking down. Therefore, the relevance is considered acceptable and natural for a casual chat.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no prolonged pauses between turns, with transitions being swift and natural (typically one second or less). There is one brief, one-second overlap from [00:05] to [00:06] as speaker A eagerly joins the conversation, but it is not disruptive. The other apparent overlaps are instances of self-talk or backchanneling within a single speaker's turn and do not interfere with the conversational flow. The dialogue proceeds at a smooth, natural pace.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/55",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:12]] A: This vegetable curry recipe sounds amazing! Could you tell me how to make it spicier since I really enjoy hot curries? I'd love some specific suggestions for increasing the heat level.\n[[00:13],[00:19]] B: To make your curry spicier, you can add more chili powder or fresh green\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:19],[00:29]] A: That's helpful for making it spicier! Could you also recommend some other vegetables that would work well in this curry? I'm trying to eat more vegetables and want to experiment with different combinations.\n[[00:30],[00:47]] B: You could try adding cauliflower, sweet potatoes, or zucchini to your curry. Broccoli, butternut squash, and green beans also work great. For leafy greens, spinach or kale added at the end would be delicious. These veggies all bring different flavors and textures to your dish.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: I see.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] B: Cool.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] B: Mhm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and coherence of the dialogue.\n1. **A's first question ([[00:00],[00:12]]):** A asks for specific suggestions on how to make a vegetable curry spicier.\n2. **B's first response ([[00:13],[00:19]]):** B directly answers the question by suggesting adding more chili powder or fresh green chilis. This response is perfectly relevant.\n3. **A's second question ([[00:19],[00:29]]):** A acknowledges the first answer and then asks a related follow-up question about adding other vegetables to the curry. This maintains topic coherence and logically extends the conversation.\n4. **B's second response ([[00:30],[00:47]]):** B provides a detailed and helpful list of various vegetables that would work well in the curry, categorizing them and explaining their benefits. This response is highly relevant and directly addresses A's question.\n\nThe dialogue is logically consistent, with each turn building upon the previous one. The topic of improving a curry recipe is maintained throughout.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, focusing on pauses and overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:**\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's first turn (ending at [00:12]) and B's response (starting at [00:13]). This is a natural and acceptable pause.\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's second turn (ending at [00:29]) and B's response (starting at [00:30]). This is also a natural pause.\n * There are no prolonged, awkward pauses that would disrupt the flow.\n\n2. **Overlaps:**\n * The transcript notes several instances of B speaking ([[00:15],[00:16]], [[00:35],[00:36]], etc.). However, these occur *during* B's own speaking turns, not overlapping with A's speech. They function as filler words or self-affirmations (e.g., \"Mhm,\" \"I see\") while B is formulating a longer thought. They do not interrupt A or create a conversational clash.\n * There are no harmful, extended overlaps where both speakers are talking over each other for a significant duration. The flow of conversation from one speaker to the next is smooth.\n\nBased on this analysis, the interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth, and the pauses are natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/55",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: I'm sorry, I thought you were going to hit me.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:04],[00:08]] B: I wasn't going to hit you! What would make you\n[[00:05],[00:06]] B: Mm.\n[[00:07],[00:11]] A: You were walking towards me with your fist clenched and you had a really angry look on your face.\n[[00:09],[00:10]] A: Really.\n[[00:12],[00:17]] B: I was just walking. I wasn't going to do anything to you. I was just upset about something else.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: I see.\n[[00:19],[00:22]] A: Well, I'm sorry. I shouldn't have punched you.\n[[00:20],[00:20]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:23],[00:24]] B: Yeah, you shouldn't have.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance.\n\n1. **A's first turn [[00:00],[00:03]]**: \"I'm sorry, I thought you were going to hit me.\" This sets the context for a confrontation.\n2. **B's first turn [[00:04],[00:08]]**: \"I wasn't going to hit you! What would make you...\" This is a direct and logical reaction to A's accusation, denying the intent and asking for justification. It's perfectly relevant.\n3. **A's second turn [[00:07],[00:11]]**: \"You were walking towards me with your fist clenched and you had a really angry look on your face.\" This directly answers B's question (\"What would make you...\"), providing the reason for A's fear. The response is coherent and stays on topic.\n4. **B's second turn [[00:12],[00:17]]**: \"I was just walking... I was just upset about something else.\" This is a relevant explanation for B's behavior, countering A's interpretation. The conversation remains logically consistent.\n5. **A's third turn [[00:19],[00:22]]**: \"Well, I'm sorry. I shouldn't have punched you.\" This is a surprising but entirely logical continuation. It reveals that A reacted physically to the perceived threat. It directly follows from the previous exchanges and A's initial fear.\n6. **B's third turn [[00:23],[00:24]]**: \"Yeah, you shouldn't have.\" This is a direct and fitting response to A's apology, acknowledging it while confirming the wrongness of the action.\n\nOverall, the dialogue is thematically coherent and logically consistent. Each turn is a direct and relevant response to the previous one, building a clear and understandable narrative.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pauses:**\n- Between A's turn ending at [00:03] and B's starting at [00:04], there is a 1-second pause. This is a normal turn-taking gap.\n- Between B's turn ending at [00:17] and A's starting at [00:19], there is a 2-second pause. This is also a natural pause, perfectly acceptable as A considers their response and formulates an apology.\n- Other turn transitions have pauses of 1 second or less.\n- Conclusion: There are no prolonged or awkward pauses that disrupt the flow of the conversation.\n\n**Overlaps:**\n- There is a minor overlap between B's turn [[00:04],[00:08]] and A's subsequent turn [[00:07],[00:11]]. The overlap lasts for about 1 second ([[00:07],[00:08]]). This is a very brief and natural interruption where A starts answering B's question before B has completely finished. It does not disrupt the conversation's flow.\n- The other noted overlaps (e.g., [[00:01],[00:02]] with [[00:00],[00:03]]) are instances of the same speaker producing a backchannel (\"Uh huh\", \"Mm\", \"Mhm\") during their own main utterance. These are not disruptive interactional overlaps between two different speakers.\n- Conclusion: There are no extended, harmful overlaps. The one brief interruption is characteristic of natural, dynamic conversation.\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent, with natural pacing and no significant disruptions.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/55",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:14]] A: That makes a lot of sense about keeping essentials handy. Could you explain more about how to use packing cubes effectively for a carry-on? I've heard they're great but not sure how many to use or how to arrange them for maximum space efficiency.\n[[00:15],[00:33]] B: Packing cubes are super helpful for staying organized! I'd recommend using two or three medium-sized ones. Put heavier items like jeans and sweaters in one cube, lighter clothes in another. Roll your clothes tightly to save space. Keep one\n[[00:20],[00:21]] B: I see.\n[[00:22],[00:22]] B: Right.\n[[00:23],[00:24]] B: Cool.\n[[00:32],[00:46]] A: That's really useful advice about the packing cubes. What about electronics and fragile items? How should I pack those to keep them safe while still making them accessible during security checks? I always worry about my laptop and camera gear getting damaged.\n[[00:47],[01:02]] B: For electronics, use a padded sleeve or case for each device. Put them all in one easy-to-reach section of your bag - preferably near the top. Security will want them separate anyway. Camera gear should go in its own protective case\n[[00:51],[00:52]] B: Mm.\n[[00:53],[00:55]] B: Cool.\n[[00:56],[00:57]] B: Really.\n[[01:01],[01:15]] A: You mentioned snacks earlier - what kinds of foods travel well in a carry-on that won't make a mess or get confiscated? I'd love some suggestions for healthy options that will keep me energized during long flights.\n[[01:15],[01:35]] B: Great question! Go for non-perishable snacks like nuts, protein bars, or dried fruit. Avoid anything liquid or gooey that might leak. Pre-cut veggies and whole fruits like apples travel well too. Just remember no liquids over 100ml.\n[[01:21],[01:22]] B: That's cool.\n[[01:23],[01:23]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[01:24],[01:25]] B: Ummm.\n[[01:34],[01:47]] A: That snack advice is perfect. One last thing - could you recommend any special items that most people forget to pack but really come in handy on long flights? I want to make sure I'm not missing anything important.\n[[01:47],[02:09]] B: Absolutely! Some often-forgotten essentials include a small first aid kit, disinfecting wipes, earplugs, and an eye mask. A portable phone charger is a lifesaver. I'd also suggest compression socks for circulation and a scarf that doubles as a blanket. These small items can make a huge difference in comfort during those long hauls!\n[[01:54],[01:54]] B: Right.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the provided dialogue transcript on two main criteria: Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n- The dialogue follows a clear and logical topic: tips for packing a carry-on bag.\n- Speaker A initiates each new sub-topic with a specific question (packing cubes, electronics, snacks, forgotten items).\n- Speaker B consistently provides direct, relevant, and helpful answers to each of A's questions.\n- For example, when A asks about packing cubes ([[00:00],[00:14]]), B gives specific advice on the number to use and how to pack them ([[00:15],[00:33]]).\n- When A asks about electronics ([[00:32],[00:46]]), B provides relevant safety and accessibility tips ([[00:47],[01:02]]).\n- This pattern continues for snacks and other essential items.\n- The entire conversation is coherent and stays on topic. The responses are logically consistent and build upon the previous turn. The quality of response relevance is excellent.\n\n\n\n**Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\n- I will check for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n- **Pauses:** The pauses between speaker turns are very short (e.g., 1 second between [[00:14]] and [[00:15]]) or non-existent (e.g., between [[01:15]] and [[01:15]]). There are no prolonged or awkward silences, indicating a smooth and natural conversational rhythm.\n- **Overlaps:** There are several brief, 1-second overlaps where the next speaker begins just as the current speaker is finishing (e.g., [[00:32],[00:33]], [[01:01],[01:02]]). These are not disruptive; instead, they reflect an engaged and fast-paced conversation, which is natural.\n- **Intra-turn utterances:** The transcript shows Speaker B making short interjections (e.g., \"I see.\", \"Right.\", \"Cool.\") in the middle of their own longer sentences. This is a clear transcription error, as a person cannot speak two separate utterances at the same time. These are almost certainly backchanneling cues from Speaker A that were misattributed. Assuming they are from Speaker A, they represent good active listening and do not harm fluency. Since the instructions are to detect *extended* overlaps, and these (if they were real overlaps) are very brief, they do not meet the criteria for being harmful.\n- Overall, the turn-taking is smooth and efficient, with no harmful pauses or overlaps. The fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/55",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: Sarah, can you believe how many stars there\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Really.\n[[00:02],[00:08]] B: Sorry to interrupt, but I just remembered—didn't you say there was going to be a meteor shower tonight?\n[[00:04],[00:04]] B: Sure.\n[[00:05],[00:06]] B: Really.\n[[00:09],[00:17]] A: Oh, right! Yes, I almost forgot about that. It's supposed to be visible in about an hour. I feel so lucky to be able to see them.\n[[00:11],[00:12]] A: Really.\n[[00:14],[00:14]] A: Mm.\n[[00:17],[00:27]] B: I know! It's amazing. I feel at peace when I look at them. It's like all my worries just fade away, and I can finally breathe.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] B: Cool.\n[[00:22],[00:22]] B: Really.\n[[00:28],[00:39]] A: Exactly, it's like the stars just wash away everything else. They make me feel small but in a good way. Like I'm part of something bigger and more beautiful than I could ever imagine.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:33],[00:34]] A: Cool.\n[[00:40],[00:43]] B: That's so beautiful, Abigail.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the provided dialogue transcript for Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n- Speaker A starts a thought about stars ([00:00]-[00:03]).\n- Speaker B interrupts politely (\"Sorry to interrupt\") to ask a related question about a meteor shower ([00:02]-[00:08]). This interruption is on-topic and moves the conversation forward.\n- Speaker A responds directly to B's question, confirming the meteor shower and sharing their feelings about it ([00:09]-[00:17]). This is a perfectly relevant and coherent response.\n- Speaker B agrees and expands on the feeling of peace that stargazing brings ([00:17]-[00:27]). This builds logically on A's comment.\n- Speaker A agrees with B (\"Exactly\") and shares a similar, deeper reflection on feeling part of something bigger ([00:28]-[00:39]). This shows active listening and maintains the topic's emotional depth.\n- Speaker B acknowledges A's beautiful thought ([00:40]-[00:43]).\n\nThe dialogue is highly coherent. Each speaker's turn is a direct and logical continuation of the previous one. They stay on the shared topic of stargazing and the feelings it evokes, building upon each other's statements. The conversation flows logically and consistently.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to analyze the interactional fluency, specifically looking for extended overlaps and long pauses.\n\n**Overlap Analysis:**\n- There is an overlap between A's turn [00:00]-[00:03] and B's turn [00:02]-[00:08]. However, this is a natural, polite interruption. B explicitly says, \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which makes it a feature of the conversation rather than a fluency error. A yields the floor appropriately. This is not a harmful overlap.\n- The other \"overlaps\" noted in the transcript (e.g., [00:11],[00:12] A: Really.) are not overlaps between speakers but rather backchanneling or fillers within a speaker's own turn. These are natural speech patterns and do not hinder fluency.\n\n**Pause Analysis:**\n- Pause between B ([00:08]) and A ([00:09]): 1 second. This is a standard, natural pause in turn-taking.\n- Pause between A ([00:17]) and B ([00:17]): No pause, a smooth transition.\n- Pause between B ([00:27]) and A ([00:28]): 1 second. Natural.\n- Pause between A ([00:39]) and B ([00:40]): 1 second. Natural.\n\nThere are no prolonged, awkward pauses between turns. The turn-taking is smooth and happens at a natural conversational pace. The one significant overlap is managed politely and is contextually appropriate. The interactional fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/56",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: I'm so frustrated! I don't know how to fix this\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Um.\n[[00:02],[00:04]] B: What problem are you talking about?\n[[00:04],[00:10]] A: The trash on the ground! It's everywhere and it's so overwhelming. I don't know where to start.\n[[00:06],[00:08]] A: Cool.\n[[00:11],[00:14]] B: Well, have you tried picking it up yourself?\n[[00:15],[00:24]] A: Of course I have! But there's just so much of it. And every time I clean up a spot, more trash appears as if people don't care.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] A: Sure.\n[[00:24],[00:39]] B: Yeah, that can be really discouraging. But you're not alone in this. Lots of people care about the environment and are trying to find ways to reduce pollution and littering. Maybe there are some things you can do to raise awareness or help out with those efforts.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Sure.\n[[00:33],[00:34]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:40],[00:52]] A: You're right, I shouldn't feel so powerless. There are definitely things I can do to make a difference. Thank you for helping me see that! But what were you saying about raising awareness and getting others involved?\n[[00:46],[00:47]] A: Uh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for Response Relevance.\n\n1. **A [00:00-00:03] -> B [00:02-00:04]:** A expresses a general frustration. B's response, \"What problem are you talking about?\", is a perfectly logical and relevant clarifying question.\n2. **B [00:02-00:04] -> A [00:04-00:10]:** A answers B's question directly, explaining the problem is trash on the ground. This maintains topic coherence.\n3. **A [00:04-00:10] -> B [00:11-00:14]:** B offers a simple, direct suggestion (\"have you tried picking it up yourself?\"). This is a relevant follow-up to A's problem statement.\n4. **B [00:11-00:14] -> A [00:15-00:24]:** A responds directly to B's suggestion, explaining why it's insufficient (\"Of course I have! But there's just so much of it...\"). This is a logical continuation.\n5. **A [00:15-00:24] -> B [00:24-00:39]:** B validates A's feelings (\"that can be really discouraging\") and then pivots to a more constructive, broader suggestion about raising awareness. This is a highly relevant and supportive response that moves the conversation forward.\n6. **B [00:24-00:39] -> A [00:40-00:52]:** A accepts B's encouragement and asks for more details on the suggestion (\"what were you saying about raising awareness...?\"). This shows A has been listening and wants to continue the topic.\n\nThe dialogue is consistently logical and coherent. Each turn is a direct and relevant response to the previous one, creating a constructive and focused conversation.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for Interactional Fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n* **Pauses:**\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's turn ending at [00:10] and B's turn starting at [00:11].\n * There is a 1-second pause between B's turn ending at [00:14] and A's turn starting at [00:15].\n * There is a 1-second pause between B's turn ending at [00:39] and A's turn starting at [00:40].\n * All these pauses are brief and represent natural conversational rhythm. There are no prolonged or awkward silences.\n\n* **Overlaps:**\n * There is a brief, one-second overlap between A's utterance [00:01-00:03] and B's response [00:02-00:04]. B starts speaking as A is finishing a thought. This is a very common and natural feature of turn-taking and does not disrupt the flow.\n * The other short utterances (e.g., A: \"Cool.\", A: \"Sure.\", B: \"Mm hmm.\") are logged as separate turns but function as backchannels or fillers within a speaker's main turn. They do not overlap with the other speaker in a disruptive way.\n\nThe turn-taking is smooth and natural. The flow of conversation is not hindered by any significant pauses or disruptive overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/56",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:12]] A: Could you explain more about how the training intensity differs between military and commercial pilots? I'm particularly interested in hearing about the specific challenges each type faces during their training process.\n[[00:13],[00:22]] B: Military pilot training is super intense, both physically and mentally. Trainees go through combat simulations and high-G\n[[00:16],[00:18]] B: Mm.\n[[00:21],[00:29]] A: Wait, could you clarify what exactly high-G force maneuvers involve and why they're so challenging for military pilots?\n[[00:29],[00:38]] B: High-G maneuvers involve rapid acceleration that pushes the body to its limits, making it hard to breathe or even stay conscious.\n[[00:32],[00:33]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:33],[00:34]] B: Right.\n[[00:37],[00:44]] A: That sounds intense! So how does commercial pilot training compare in terms of difficulty and the skills they focus on most?\n[[00:45],[00:56]] B: Commercial training focuses more on mastering flight procedures, navigation systems, and safely handling large passenger planes in different weather\n[[00:48],[00:49]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:50],[00:51]] B: Really.\n[[00:54],[01:06]] A: What about the financial side of things? Does the military cover all training costs while commercial pilots pay out of pocket? I'm curious about the financial commitment for each path.\n[[01:06],[01:15]] B: Military training is fully funded by the government, including housing and medical benefits. Commercial pilots usually pay for their\n[[01:09],[01:10]] B: Um.\n[[01:11],[01:12]] B: Cool.\n[[01:14],[01:22]] A: That's a big difference! Are there any options for commercial pilots to get financial help, like scholarships or airline-sponsored programs?\n[[01:22],[01:37]] B: Some airlines offer tuition reimbursement or training programs after hiring, and there are also aviation scholarships available. But most commercial pilots still start with significant personal investment in their training.\n[[01:27],[01:28]] B: Really.\n[[01:29],[01:30]] B: Sure.\n[[01:31],[01:31]] B: I see.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B directly answers Speaker A's questions about the differences between military and commercial pilot training. When Speaker A interrupts to ask for a specific clarification on \"high-G force maneuvers\" [[00:21]], Speaker B provides a focused and relevant explanation [[00:29]]. The conversation then logically pivots back to commercial pilot training [[00:37]] and later smoothly transitions to the financial aspects of training [[00:54]]. Each turn logically follows the previous one, building a coherent and informative conversation.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very high. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the conversation flows smoothly and quickly. There are several instances of brief overlap, such as at [[00:21]], [[00:37]], [[00:54]], and [[01:14]]. However, these overlaps are short (1-2 seconds) and typical of natural, engaged conversation where one speaker begins their turn just as the other is finishing. They function as natural interruptions for clarification or enthusiastic turn-taking rather than disruptive cross-talk. Additionally, Speaker B provides frequent backchannels (\"Mm\", \"Okay,okay\", \"Uh huh\", \"Really\", etc.), which signal active listening and contribute to a very natural and fluent interaction.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/56",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hey, Dad. I wanted to talk to you about something.\n[[00:03],[00:04]] B: What's up?\n[[00:04],[00:08]] A: I signed a lease for an apartment. I'm moving\n[[00:06],[00:07]] A: Mm.\n[[00:07],[00:14]] B: Wait, you signed a lease? That's huge! Did you check out the neighborhood and everything before making the decision?\n[[00:09],[00:11]] B: Cool.\n[[00:14],[00:25]] A: Yeah, I did. It's a really nice area, and I move in next week. I'm really excited about it. But, um, I guess I'm also kind of nervous too.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] A: Really.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] A: Really.\n[[00:25],[00:42]] B: It's natural to feel both ways. Moving out is a big step. But you're ready for it and you're going to do great. We'll help you get moved and settled in, and then we'll visit all the time. You're always welcome here, no matter how far away you are or what happens.\n[[00:30],[00:31]] B: Right.\n[[00:32],[00:32]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:33],[00:34]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:43],[00:48]] A: I appreciate that, Dad. But, what if I realize I made the wrong decision after moving out?\n[[00:46],[00:47]] A: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue presents a conversation between a child (A) and their father (B).\n- Speaker A initiates the conversation by announcing they have signed a lease and are moving out.\n- Speaker B reacts with surprise and concern, asking a relevant question about due diligence (\"Did you check out the neighborhood?\").\n- Speaker A answers the question and shares their mixed feelings of excitement and nervousness.\n- Speaker B responds with reassurance and support, directly addressing the expressed nervousness and offering help. This is a very logical and emotionally consistent response.\n- Speaker A expresses appreciation and then raises a new, related concern (\"what if I realize I made the wrong decision?\").\nThe entire conversation is thematically coherent, staying on the topic of moving out. Each turn is a logical and relevant response to the previous one, creating a natural and consistent flow.\n\n\n\nThe interactional flow is very smooth and natural.\n- **Pauses:** There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are quick (e.g., the 1-second pause at [[00:02],[00:03]] and [[00:42],[00:43]] is very typical).\n- **Overlaps:** There is a brief, one-second overlap from [[00:07]] to [[00:08]] where B starts speaking with excitement/surprise before A has completely finished. This is a very common and natural feature of engaged conversation and does not disrupt the flow. The other short utterances (e.g., \"Mm hmm\", \"Right\", \"Really\") act as backchannels, showing active listening, and are not disruptive. The conversation feels fluid and engaged.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/56",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: Could you tell me about a time when helping a stranger made a big difference in their life? I'm really interested in hearing how small acts of kindness can lead to big changes for people in need.\n[[00:11],[00:16]] B: Absolutely! Let me tell you about a woman who bought lunch for a homeless man. That\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Sure.\n[[00:15],[00:26]] A: Wait, that's amazing! But before you continue, could you explain how she went from buying lunch to actually helping him find employment? That seems like a big jump.\n[[00:26],[00:32]] B: Great question! After their first meeting, she kept checking in on him. She learned he had job skills\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:32],[00:39]] A: That makes sense, but how did she handle the safety aspect? I'd worry about getting too involved with someone I just met on the street.\n[[00:39],[00:48]] B: You're right to think about safety. She always met him in public places and involved local shelters. Small\n[[00:42],[00:43]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:44],[00:44]] B: Sure.\n[[00:47],[00:53]] A: That's really helpful to know. Could you share some other examples of safe ways to help strangers that don't require big commitments?\n[[00:54],[01:04]] B: Sure! Simple things work best - paying for someone's groceries, giving bus fare, or just having a friendly conversation. Even calling a shelter\n[[00:57],[00:59]] B: Uh.\n[[01:00],[01:01]] B: Ummm.\n[[01:03],[01:11]] A: I like those ideas! But how do you know when to step in versus when to let professionals handle a situation? Where's that line?\n[[01:12],[01:25]] B: That's an important balance. If someone seems in crisis, calling social services is best. For everyday needs, trust your gut - if it feels safe, small gestures can mean everything.\n[[01:16],[01:16]] B: Sure.\n[[01:17],[01:18]] B: I see.\n[[01:19],[01:20]] B: Mm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A initiates the conversation with a clear, specific request for a story about helping a stranger. Speaker B begins to provide a relevant story. Speaker A then interjects with clarifying questions that are directly related to the story and the broader topic (e.g., \"how did she go from buying lunch to helping him find employment?\" and \"how did she handle the safety aspect?\"). Speaker B consistently provides direct, logical, and helpful answers to these questions. The conversation flows logically from a specific anecdote to more general principles of helping others safely and effectively. Each turn is a coherent and relevant response to the previous one, maintaining a consistent and focused topic throughout the interaction.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good and natural. There are no prolonged pauses between turns; the gaps are consistently one second or less, which indicates a smooth and responsive conversational flow. There are a few instances of brief overlaps, such as at [[00:15]-[00:16]] and [[01:03]-[01:04]]. However, these are very short (one second) and are typical of an engaged, dynamic conversation where one speaker eagerly jumps in. They are not disruptive or extended overlaps where both speakers talk over each other for a significant period. The various backchannels and fillers (e.g., \"Mhm,\" \"Yeah, yeah,\" \"Ummm\") from Speaker B, while frequent, are also characteristic of natural speech and do not hinder the clarity or flow of the dialogue. Overall, the turn-taking is smooth and feels like a natural, human interaction.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/57",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: I don't know what's wrong with me, Max. I used to be able to laugh all the time, but now it feels like there's this big hole inside me and I can't make the sound come out right.\n[[00:03],[00:03]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:05],[00:05]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:11],[00:17]] B: That sounds really tough, Natanael. I'm sorry you're going through this. Do you want to talk about what might have\n[[00:13],[00:15]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:16],[00:23]] A: Actually, I'm not sure. It just feels like something switched off inside me and I can't find the switch to turn it back on again.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] A: Mm.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] A: Right.\n[[00:23],[00:27]] B: Have you been under a lot of stress lately? Or feeling down in general?\n[[00:25],[00:25]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:28],[00:42]] A: Yeah, I guess so. My mom has been really sick and it's been hard to see her like that. And then my dad lost his job and we're struggling financially. So, yeah...I guess I've just been feeling kind of down and overwhelmed by everything that's happening.\n[[00:32],[00:33]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:34],[00:34]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:36],[00:36]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:42],[00:52]] B: That's really tough, Natanael. Have you considered talking to a professional about what you're going through? Sometimes it helps to get an outside perspective.\n[[00:45],[00:46]] B: Really.\n[[00:53],[01:02]] A: I haven't thought about that yet. But maybe I should. You mentioned taking some time for myself earlier. What kind of things do you think could help me feel better?\n[[01:02],[01:13]] B: Well, it depends on what you enjoy. Maybe spending time with friends, picking up a hobby you used to love, or even just taking a walk in nature. Finding small joys can make a big difference.\n[[01:13],[01:16]] A: Yeah...maybe that's worth a try. Thanks, Max.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue transcript for response relevance and interactional fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n- Speaker A starts by expressing a personal problem (feeling unable to laugh, feeling empty).\n- Speaker B responds with empathy and asks a clarifying question to understand the cause. This is a relevant and supportive response.\n- Speaker A answers B's question, stating they are unsure of the cause. This maintains topic coherence.\n- Speaker B then probes further with more specific questions about stress or general mood, which is a logical next step in the conversation.\n- Speaker A confirms being under stress and provides specific, difficult life events as reasons. This directly answers B's question and elaborates on the topic.\n- Speaker B shows empathy again and offers a concrete, relevant suggestion (talking to a professional).\n- Speaker A considers the suggestion and then asks for other ideas for self-care, which is a logical continuation of the problem-solving theme.\n- Speaker B provides several relevant suggestions in response to A's direct question.\n- Speaker A concludes the conversation by thanking B and agreeing to try the suggestions.\n\nThe dialogue is highly coherent and logically consistent. Each speaker's turn is a direct and relevant response to the previous one, and they stay on the central topic of A's emotional well-being throughout the interaction.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to analyze the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pause Analysis:**\n- [[00:10]] -> [[00:11]]: A 1-second pause. This is a normal conversational gap.\n- [[00:27]] -> [[00:28]]: A 1-second pause. Also a normal gap.\n- [[00:52]] -> [[00:53]]: A 1-second pause. Again, perfectly normal.\n- All other turn transitions have negligible or no pauses. There are no prolonged or awkward silences between turns.\n\n**Overlap Analysis:**\n- [[00:11],[00:17]] B begins speaking slightly before A finishes at [[00:10]]. This is a very brief overlap (around 1 second) and is a natural sign of B's eagerness to respond supportively.\n- [[00:16],[00:17]] A begins to answer B's question before B has fully finished asking it. This is a very common and natural type of interruption in conversation.\n- There are numerous short, single-word interjections (e.g., \"Mhm,\" \"Okay,\" \"Yeah,\" \"Right\") that overlap with the main speaker. These function as backchannels, indicating active listening and engagement. They are not disruptive but rather contribute to the natural flow.\n- There are no instances of extended, competitive overlaps where both speakers are talking over each other for a significant duration.\n\nThe interaction is very fluent. The flow is smooth, and the brief overlaps and backchanneling contribute to a natural and engaged conversational style. There are no harmful long pauses or extended overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/58",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hey, Josie. How are you doing today?\n[[00:02],[00:04]] B: I'm doing well, Laiken. How are you?\n[[00:05],[00:10]] A: I'm doing good. Just wanted to check in with you and see how your finances are\n[[00:07],[00:08]] A: Really.\n[[00:09],[00:14]] B: Sorry to jump in, but I actually had a question about the upcoming rent. Is everything set for that?\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:15],[00:21]] A: Yes, the rent is all taken care of. I was just about to mention that your finances are looking good overall.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] A: Right.\n[[00:21],[00:24]] B: That's a relief. Thanks for handling that.\n[[00:24],[00:32]] A: No problem. I just want to make sure everything is in order for you. So, what's been going on lately? Any big purchases or anything?\n[[00:26],[00:28]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:29],[00:29]] A: Sure.\n[[00:32],[00:38]] B: Nope, nothing big lately. Just the usual stuff, like groceries and a few small things here and there.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: Mm.\n[[00:38],[00:47]] A: Actually, before you continue, I wanted to ask if there are any upcoming subscriptions or renewals we should be aware of?\n[[00:41],[00:42]] A: Really.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] A: I see.\n[[00:47],[00:53]] B: Oh, good point. I do have a magazine subscription renewing next month, but nothing else major.\n[[00:50],[00:51]] B: Um.\n[[00:53],[01:01]] A: Great, I'll keep an eye on that. I'll also go ahead and pay any bills that come in and make sure you have enough money to cover your expenses.\n[[01:02],[01:05]] B: Thank you, Laiken. I really appreciate it.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue is a check-in between two individuals, A (Laiken) and B (Josie), about B's finances.\n- The conversation starts with standard greetings.\n- A introduces the topic of finances.\n- B interrupts to ask a relevant question about rent, which is directly related to finances.\n- A answers B's question and then returns to the broader financial check-in.\n- A asks about recent purchases, and B provides a relevant answer.\n- A then asks about upcoming subscriptions, which is another logical and relevant question within the context of a financial review.\n- B answers the question about subscriptions.\n- The conversation concludes with A summarizing the next steps and B expressing gratitude.\nEvery turn is logically connected to the previous one, and the topic of finances is maintained coherently throughout the entire interaction. The interruptions from both speakers are relevant to the topic and serve to address immediate, related concerns, which is natural in a real conversation.\n\n\n\nI will analyze the timestamps to check for long pauses or extended overlaps.\n- **Pauses:**\n - [[00:04],[00:05]]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n - [[00:14],[00:15]]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n - [[01:01],[01:02]]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n There are no long or awkward pauses between turns. The transitions are smooth.\n\n- **Overlaps:**\n - [[00:09],[00:10]]: A's turn [[00:05],[00:10]] and B's turn [[00:09],[00:14]] overlap for 1 second. B explicitly acknowledges this by saying \"Sorry to jump in.\" This is a natural, interactional overlap, not a technical flaw.\n - [[00:38]]: There is a very brief, almost non-existent overlap as A begins speaking just as B finishes. A prefaces the interruption with \"Actually, before you continue,\" which makes the turn-taking smooth and polite despite the interruption.\n - Other \"utterances\" listed (like \"Really,\" \"Mm hmm,\" \"Okay, okay\") are self-contained within a single speaker's turn in the transcript, indicating they are likely backchannels or filler words spoken by the main speaker during their own turn, not overlaps from the other person.\nThe conversation flows very naturally. The overlaps are brief and handled in a way that is common in human conversation, indicating good interactional chemistry rather than a communication breakdown.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/59",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: Why didn't you keep your promise? I thought you said you would call me when you got home.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:05],[00:08]] B: I'm sorry, Britani. I completely forgot about it.\n[[00:06],[00:07]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:09],[00:14]] A: I don't understand how you could forget\n[[00:11],[00:12]] A: I see.\n[[00:12],[00:16]] B: I was just really tired and I didn't think about it.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:17],[00:23]] A: Well, I was worried about you and I couldn't sleep because I was thinking about whether something might have happened to you.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:24],[00:31]] B: I understand, and I'm really sorry for making you worry. I'll try to do better next time.\n[[00:26],[00:27]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:28],[00:29]] B: Cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A begins by confronting Speaker B about a broken promise, clearly stating the issue. Speaker B's responses are consistently relevant and appropriate. They apologize, provide an explanation (being tired), and then offer a more empathetic apology after understanding the worry they caused. The conversation follows a logical and coherent path from conflict to resolution. Each turn directly addresses the previous one, maintaining a clear and consistent topic.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. The pauses between turns are all approximately one second long, which is natural for a back-and-forth conversation. There is a two-second overlap between [[00:12],[00:14]] where Speaker B begins explaining themselves while Speaker A is finishing their thought. This brief overlap is not disruptive and is common in natural, emotional conversations, reflecting B's eagerness to respond. The other transcribed overlaps are all self-overlaps (one speaker's filler words overlapping their own main sentence), which do not disrupt the flow between the speakers. There are no prolonged or harmful overlaps or pauses.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/59",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Hi! How are you today?\n[[00:01],[00:05]] B: I'm doing well, thank you. How are you?\n[[00:03],[00:03]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:06],[00:09]] A: I'm good, thanks. Just doing some grocery shopping.\n[[00:07],[00:08]] A: Um.\n[[00:10],[00:13]] B: Let me know if you need help finding\n[[00:13],[00:18]] A: Oh, actually, I was just wondering if you know where the almond milk is? I can't seem to find it.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:18],[00:23]] B: Sure, it's usually in the dairy section, but sometimes they place it in the health food aisle.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:24],[00:28]] A: Thanks, I will check there. So, what's been going on with you lately?\n[[00:26],[00:27]] A: Sure.\n[[00:29],[00:34]] B: Oh, not much. Just the usual stuff. You know how it can get busy with work and all.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Sure.\n[[00:36],[00:40]] A: Actually, I was thinking, have you tried that new coffee shop that just opened around the corner?\n[[00:38],[00:39]] A: Really.\n[[00:41],[00:45]] B: No, I haven't, but I've heard good things. Maybe I'll check it out this weekend.\n[[00:42],[00:43]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:47],[00:51]] A: You should! Their pastries are amazing. Anyway, thanks for your help.\n[[00:49],[00:49]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:53],[00:56]] B: No problem at all. Have a great day!",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for Response Relevance.\n\n1. **Initial Greeting:** A asks how B is, and B responds appropriately and reciprocates the question. This is a standard and relevant opening.\n2. **Request for Help:** A explains they are grocery shopping and then asks for help finding almond milk. This is a logical progression. B's response is directly relevant, providing two possible locations for the item.\n3. **Topic Shift 1:** After thanking B, A shifts the topic to a general \"what's been going on with you?\". This is a natural way to extend a casual conversation beyond a simple transaction. B's response is a standard, relevant answer.\n4. **Topic Shift 2:** A then introduces a new topic about a coffee shop. This is also a natural conversational pivot. B's response is on-topic and engaging.\n5. **Closing:** The conversation concludes with A thanking B again and B wishing A a good day. This is a logical and polite closing.\n\nThe main conversational turns are all logically consistent and coherent. The topics flow naturally from a specific request to general small talk and a polite conclusion. The few single-word interjections like \"Mhm\" or \"Ummm\" are typical backchanneling or fillers. While some interjections like \"That's cool\" or \"Sure\" seem slightly misplaced within the speaker's own turn, they do not detract from the overall high relevance and coherence of the dialogue. The conversation is easy to follow and makes perfect sense.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for Interactional Fluency, focusing on pauses and overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:** I will check the time gaps between turns.\n * [[00:05],[00:06]]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n * [[00:09],[00:10]]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n * [[00:13],[00:18]] A starts immediately after [[00:10],[00:13]] B. This is very fluid.\n * [[00:23],[00:24]]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n * [[00:28],[00:29]]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n * [[00:34],[00:36]]: 2-second pause. Acceptable, natural pause for thought.\n * [[00:40],[00:41]]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n * [[00:45],[00:47]]: 2-second pause. Acceptable.\n * [[00:51],[00:53]]: 2-second pause. Acceptable.\n There are no awkwardly long or disruptive pauses. The pacing feels natural for a casual conversation.\n\n2. **Overlaps:** I will check the timestamps for simultaneous speech.\n * There are no instances where speaker A and speaker B are talking over each other for any significant duration. The turn-taking is clean and efficient.\n * The transcript does show some single-word utterances (e.g., \"Mhm,\" \"Sure\") from a speaker during their own main utterance. These are best interpreted as conversational fillers or self-corrections rather than disruptive overlaps with the other person. They do not impede the flow of the conversation.\n\nThe interaction is smooth and fluid. The speakers transition between turns without delay or interruption, creating a very natural conversational rhythm.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/59",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:13]] A: That monkey limerick was really funny! Could you create one more for me, but this time about a clumsy penguin who keeps slipping on ice? I'd love to hear how you'd make that scenario amusing in limerick form.\n[[00:14],[00:20]] B: Absolutely! Here's a limerick about a penguin with slippery feet: There\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user (A) asks for a limerick about a clumsy penguin. The assistant (B) starts its turn by agreeing to the request (\"Absolutely!\") and then begins to deliver the limerick as requested (\"Here's a limerick about a penguin...\"). The response is directly relevant, on-topic, and logically consistent with the user's prompt. It perfectly fulfills the user's request.\n\n\n\nThe interaction begins with a natural 1-second pause between speaker A finishing and speaker B starting ([00:13] to [00:14]). This is a normal conversational gap. However, there is a clear self-overlap where speaker B says \"Really\" ([00:16]-[00:17]) while its main utterance is in progress. While this self-interruption is a minor disfluency and sounds slightly unnatural, it is very brief (1 second long). It does not prevent the main message from being understood and is not a prolonged or harmful overlap that significantly disrupts the conversational flow. The primary turn continues without being derailed. Therefore, the overall fluency is still very high.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/59",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:09]] A: Could you explain the overall tone of this material and why it comes across that way? I'm particularly interested in how the different phrases work together to create this effect.\n[[00:11],[00:22]] B: The tone feels nostalgic and bittersweet. The line about blossoms in an ancient spring suggests longing for the past. The ups\n[[00:15],[00:15]] B: Really.\n[[00:21],[00:30]] A: What specific elements make the nostalgia stand out in this passage? I'd like to understand how the writer conveys that sense of looking back on something lost.\n[[00:31],[00:59]] B: The ancient spring reference makes the past seem distant yet beautiful. Blossoms suggest renewal, but calling it ancient means it's gone now. The contrast between ecstatic highs and painful lows shows how memories can be both sweet and sad. The marksman's shadow hints that time moves forward, deepening the sense of loss.\n[[00:39],[00:41]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:41],[00:43]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:44],[00:45]] B: Sure.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue for response relevance and interactional fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n1. **A's first turn ([00:00]-[00:09]):** Asks a clear question about the tone of a piece of material and how it's created.\n2. **B's first turn ([00:11]-[00:22]):** Directly answers the question by identifying the tone as \"nostalgic and bittersweet\" and begins to explain why by citing a specific line. This is a perfectly relevant and coherent response.\n3. **A's second turn ([00:21]-[00:30]):** Asks a logical follow-up question, seeking more detail on the element of nostalgia. This maintains the topic and deepens the conversation.\n4. **B's second turn ([00:31]-[00:59]):** Provides a detailed, well-structured answer that breaks down multiple elements (\"ancient spring,\" \"blossoms,\" \"highs and lows,\" \"marksman's shadow\") to explain how the sense of nostalgia is conveyed. The response is directly relevant, logically consistent, and thoroughly addresses the user's question.\n\nThe conversation is coherent and stays on topic. Speaker B provides thoughtful and relevant answers to Speaker A's questions. The backchannels from B (\"Really\", \"Uh huh\", \"Sure\") are a bit oddly placed as they occur during B's own speaking turns, but the content of the main utterances is excellent.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pause Analysis:**\n* **[00:09] to [00:11]:** A 2-second pause between A's question and B's answer. This is a natural length for someone to process a question and begin a response.\n* **[00:30] to [00:31]:** A 1-second pause between A's second question and B's answer. This is very brief and indicates a smooth turn transition.\n* There are no long, awkward, or harmful pauses in the dialogue.\n\n**Overlap Analysis:**\n* **[00:21] to [00:22]:** Speaker A begins their turn one second before Speaker B finishes. This is a very brief overlap, common in natural, engaged conversation, and is not disruptive.\n* The backchannels from Speaker B ([00:15], [00:39], [00:41], [00:44]) occur during its own speaking turns, not overlapping with Speaker A. While this is an unusual speech pattern, it does not create a competitive or disruptive overlap between the speakers.\n\n**Conclusion:** The interactional flow is smooth. There are no detrimental long pauses or extended overlaps. The turn-taking is efficient and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/59",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: So, how often do you go online?\n[[00:02],[00:18]] B: Oh, probably a few times a day. I check my email first thing in the morning, and then I might browse the news or social media sites like Facebook or Twitter. And of course, I always go online when I'm looking for something specific, like information about a product or directions to\n[[00:07],[00:08]] B: I see.\n[[00:09],[00:10]] B: Really.\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:18],[00:26]] A: Speaking of directions, do you use any specific apps for navigation, or do you just search directly on your browser?\n[[00:20],[00:21]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:22],[00:22]] A: Mm.\n[[00:26],[00:34]] B: I usually use Google Maps for navigation, it's pretty reliable. But as I was saying, I also use the internet for finding product information.\n[[00:28],[00:29]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:30],[00:31]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:34],[00:41]] A: What do you think about the amount of time you spend on the Internet? Do you feel like it's too much, or just right?\n[[00:37],[00:38]] A: Uh.\n[[00:42],[01:00]] B: Honestly, I feel like it's probably too much. Sometimes I'll find myself surfing the web for hours without really accomplishing anything. It's easy to get lost in all the information and distractions out there. But other times, it's really helpful and efficient - so it just depends on what I'm doing online.\n[[00:47],[00:48]] B: Um.\n[[00:49],[00:51]] B: Um.\n[[01:00],[01:07]] A: I totally get that. The efficiency is great, but do you ever find it hard to balance that with staying present in the moment?\n[[01:07],[01:20]] B: Definitely. That's actually one of the downsides I was about to mention—spending too much time online can make me feel isolated and disconnected from the world around me.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe conversation demonstrates excellent response relevance and coherence. The dialogue flows logically from one topic to the next, with each speaker actively listening and building upon the other's contributions. Speaker A begins with a general question about online frequency. Speaker B provides a detailed answer. Speaker A then skillfully picks up on a specific detail (\"directions\") to ask a relevant follow-up question. The speakers continue this natural back-and-forth, moving from practical uses of the internet (navigation, product info) to more reflective topics (time spent online, feeling disconnected). Every response is directly related to the previous turn, creating a cohesive and engaging conversation.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no prolonged pauses between turns that would indicate awkwardness or a breakdown in communication. The one-second pause between [[00:41]] and [[00:42]] is completely natural. The speakers transition smoothly between turns, often starting immediately as the other finishes. There are also no extended or disruptive overlaps. The brief, single-word utterances (e.g., \"Mhm,\" \"Mm\") that overlap with the main speaker's turn function as appropriate backchannels, signaling active listening and engagement rather than interruption. The flow of conversation is smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/60",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:13]] A: Could you show me some specific examples of how the Smile Perfect Dental brand would look on a promotional flyer? I'd like to understand how the colors, logo, and typography work together in a real-world marketing piece.\n[[00:14],[00:22]] B: Absolutely! Here's how a promotional flyer for Smile Perfect Dental might look. The flyer would have a light\n[[00:17],[00:17]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Really.\n[[00:21],[00:31]] A: That sounds great, but could you describe how the brand colors would be balanced on the flyer? I want to make sure it doesn't look too dark or overwhelming while still being professional.\n[[00:33],[01:03]] B: The color balance would be carefully managed. The light blue background covers about 70% of the flyer for a calming effect. The deep blue would be used for about 20% - just for the logo, headlines, and call-to-action button. The remaining 10% would be white space to keep it clean. Pale green might appear as small accents, like underlines or icons. This creates a professional yet approachable look that isn't too dark or heavy.\n[[00:42],[00:42]] B: Really.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:45],[00:46]] B: Cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user A asks for a specific example of a promotional flyer, focusing on the integration of brand elements. User B begins to provide a description. User A then interjects with a more specific question about the color balance to ensure the design isn't overwhelming. User B provides a detailed, quantitative, and well-reasoned explanation of the color balance, directly addressing A's concern. The conversation is logically consistent and stays on topic. Both speakers' contributions are relevant and build upon each other coherently.\n\n\n\nThe interaction between the two speakers is very smooth. There is a brief, one-second pause between the first and second turns ([00:13] to [00:14]), which is a natural gap. There is a two-second pause between the second and third turns ([00:31] to [00:33]), which is also acceptable as B formulates a detailed response. There is a very brief one-second overlap ([00:21]-[00:22]) where A begins to speak just as B is finishing a word. This is a common and natural feature of conversation and does not disrupt the flow. There are no extended, disruptive overlaps or long, awkward pauses. The conversation flows smoothly and naturally.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/60",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:05]] A: I regret eating the last piece of cake. Now I want to go to the store and buy a\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:04],[00:09]] B: Why do you regret eating the last piece of cake? Was it not good, or do you just want more?\n[[00:05],[00:06]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:09],[00:12]] A: Because now I want more cake and there isn't any left.\n[[00:11],[00:11]] A: Cool.\n[[00:13],[00:17]] B: Well, you could always go to the store and buy a new cake.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Uh.\n[[00:17],[00:28]] A: Yeah, but then I'd have to eat it all by myself and that would be a lot of cake. Plus, it's kind of expensive to keep buying cakes like this, especially since I'm trying to save some money.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:22],[00:23]] A: I see.\n[[00:24],[00:25]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:29],[00:34]] B: Have you thought about making your own cake? It might be cheaper, and you can control how much you make.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:34],[00:36]] A: I don't know how to bake a cake.\n[[00:36],[00:40]] B: It's not that hard. I can show you how if you want.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] B: Mm.\n[[00:40],[00:44]] A: Okay, that sounds like a good idea. Thanks for the help!\n[[00:42],[00:42]] A: Mm hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. The conversation follows a clear and logical path. It starts with Speaker A expressing regret about eating the last piece of cake. Speaker B's responses are consistently relevant, first by asking for clarification (\"Why do you regret...?\"), then by offering a simple solution (\"go to the store\"). When Speaker A explains the issues with that solution (cost and quantity), Speaker B provides a better, more thoughtful suggestion (baking a cake) that directly addresses A's concerns. The conversation concludes logically with B offering help and A accepting. Each turn is a coherent and logical continuation of the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent according to the specified criteria. There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns; the longest pause is only one second, which is natural. The turn-taking is smooth and immediate. There is a single, one-second overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B ([00:04]-[00:05]), which is a brief and acceptable occurrence in a natural conversation. The other utterances timestamped within a speaker's own turn (e.g., A saying \"Mhm\" at [00:20] while in the middle of a longer sentence) are not extended overlaps between the two conversational partners and do not disrupt the flow of the turn-taking. Therefore, the dialogue does not contain the harmful fluency issues of extended overlaps or long pauses.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/60",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: That's a great idea about using live birds as models, but could you tell me more about what Kathy said regarding safety considerations when setting up these displays?\n[[00:11],[00:20]] B: Kathy emphasized keeping the birds safe while they're on display. She suggested using sturdy gyms that won't tip\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:19],[00:28]] A: I see, that makes sense for safety, but what about the types of toys she recommended pairing with the gyms to make them more attractive to customers?\n[[00:29],[00:38]] B: Kathy mentioned colorful wooden toys, foraging puzzles, and chewable items work best. She said variety is key—customers love seeing\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Really.\n[[00:33],[00:34]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:37],[00:47]] A: That sounds like a smart strategy, but did Kathy share any advice on how often stores should rotate the toys or change up the display to maintain customer interest?\n[[00:47],[00:55]] B: Yes! She recommended switching toys every week or two to keep things exciting. Stores could even theme\n[[00:50],[00:50]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:51],[00:52]] B: Really.\n[[00:54],[01:03]] A: Got it, but before we wrap up, could you summarize Kathy's top three tips for stores wanting to boost sales of bird play gyms based on her article?\n[[01:03],[01:18]] B: Absolutely! First, use live birds to demo the gyms. Second, prioritize safety with sturdy setups and supervision. Third, keep displays fresh with rotating toys and seasonal themes. Those were her biggest takeaways for success!\n[[01:07],[01:09]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[01:09],[01:11]] B: Hmm.\n[[01:12],[01:13]] B: Mm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue transcript based on Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n- Speaker A asks a series of specific questions about Kathy's advice on bird play gyms.\n- Question 1: Asks about safety considerations. Speaker B responds directly about sturdy gyms to prevent tipping. This is relevant.\n- Question 2: Asks about recommended toy types. Speaker B responds directly about colorful wooden toys, puzzles, and chewable items. This is relevant.\n- Question 3: Asks about the frequency of rotating toys. Speaker B responds directly about switching toys every week or two. This is relevant.\n- Question 4: Asks for a summary of the top three tips. Speaker B provides a clear, concise summary that accurately reflects the information discussed previously (live bird demos, safety, rotating toys). This is perfectly relevant and coherent.\n\nThe dialogue follows a logical progression, with each of B's responses directly and accurately addressing A's questions. The topic remains consistent throughout. The relevance is excellent.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to analyze the interactional fluency, specifically looking for extended overlaps and long pauses.\n\n- **Pauses:**\n - [[00:10]] -> [[00:11]]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n - [[00:28]] -> [[00:29]]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n - [[00:47]] -> [[00:47]]: No pause. Smooth transition.\n - [[01:03]] -> [[01:03]]: No pause. Smooth transition.\n There are no long, awkward pauses between speaker turns. The conversation flows smoothly.\n\n- **Overlaps:**\n - [[00:19]] A starts, [[00:20]] B ends. A brief, 1-second overlap. This is a natural type of overlap where the next speaker begins slightly before the current one has finished. It is not disruptive.\n - [[00:37]] A starts, [[00:38]] B ends. Another brief, 1-second overlap. Again, this is natural and shows engagement.\n - [[00:54]] A starts, [[00:55]] B ends. A third brief, 1-second overlap. This is consistent with natural turn-taking.\n - The transcript also shows Speaker B making short backchannel-like utterances (\"Mm hmm,\" \"Really,\" \"Yeah, yeah\") during their own speaking turns. While unusual to see transcribed this way, these are very brief and do not create an extended overlap with Speaker A or disrupt the flow of information.\n\nThe interaction is characterized by smooth turn-taking, appropriate brief pauses, and natural, non-disruptive overlaps. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses that would harm fluency. The fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/61",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:05]] A: Hi, thanks for coming by. As you can see, the house is in great condition and I think it'll be a great sell.\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:07],[00:11]] B: Absolutely! This is a beautiful home. How long have you lived\n[[00:08],[00:10]] B: I see.\n[[00:10],[00:16]] A: Sorry to cut in, but I just remembered to ask, have you had any recent renovations done?\n[[00:13],[00:14]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:16],[00:23]] B: We've been here for about 10 years now. We're moving to a new city for work, so we're looking to sell this place.\n[[00:19],[00:21]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:24],[00:35]] A: Ah, I see. Well, I'm sure we'll be able to find a buyer quickly. Have you had any thoughts on what kind of price you'd like to set for the house, considering the market trends?\n[[00:27],[00:28]] A: Right.\n[[00:30],[00:31]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:36],[00:44]] B: Actually, I wanted to clarify, you mentioned the condition of the house earlier—could you elaborate on any specific upgrades or maintenance you've done?\n[[00:39],[00:39]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:40],[00:41]] B: Really.\n[[00:46],[00:50]] A: To be honest, I'm not really sure. What do you think it's worth?\n[[00:47],[00:48]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:51],[00:57]] B: Well, given the condition of the house and the location, I think we could list it for around $400,000.\n[[00:53],[00:55]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:59],[01:02]] A: Alright, that sounds fair. Let's go with that then.\n[[01:03],[01:06]] B: Great! I'll get started on the listing right away.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue consistently revolves around the central topic of selling a house. Both speakers stick to relevant sub-topics such as the house's condition, the owner's history, renovations, and pricing. While the roles seem to become confused towards the end (e.g., the agent A asks the owner B for a valuation, and the owner B says they will \"get started on the listing\"), the responses are still logically connected within the immediate turn-by-turn context. For instance, B's question about specific upgrades [[00:36]-[00:44]] is a direct follow-up to A's initial claim that the \"house is in great condition\" [[00:00]-[00:05]]. The conversation, despite its logical oddities, maintains a coherent thematic thread from start to finish.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The conversation flows naturally with no awkward, long pauses between turns. The dialogue is peppered with natural backchanneling cues like \"I see,\" \"Uh huh,\" and \"Mhm,\" which indicate active listening and create a smooth rhythm. There is one extended overlap [[00:10]-[00:16]] where speaker A interrupts speaker B. However, this is handled naturally, as speaker A prefaces the interruption with \"Sorry to cut in,\" acknowledging the conversational rule-breaking. This makes the interruption feel like a realistic, if slightly impolite, part of a conversation rather than a technical flaw. The overall pace and turn-taking are very natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 3
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/61",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: That sounds amazing! Could you tell me more about their skydiving experience specifically? Like where they did it and how they felt about taking that big leap together?\n[[00:10],[00:21]] B: They went skydiving in Colorado with a professional instructor guiding them. At first they were terrified holding hands in the plane, but the\n[[00:13],[00:15]] B: I see.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Really.\n[[00:20],[00:27]] A: I'm curious about Charlie the traveler they met - what kind of stories did he share that inspired them so much during their journey?\n[[00:27],[00:38]] B: Charlie had hitchhiked across America three times! He told wild stories about sleeping under stars in Utah and helping\n[[00:30],[00:31]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:32],[00:33]] B: Mm.\n[[00:37],[00:45]] A: You mentioned they discovered hidden gems in small towns - can you give me some examples of these special places that weren't in their original itinerary?\n[[00:45],[00:55]] B: Oh definitely! There was a tiny bakery in Nebraska with the best pies, and a secret hot spring in Oregon. But their\n[[00:48],[00:49]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:50],[00:51]] B: I see.\n[[00:54],[01:02]] A: Wait, a retired astronaut running a bookshop? That sounds fascinating! What did he tell them about his space experiences?\n[[01:02],[01:13]] B: He showed them actual mission photos and described how space smells like burnt metal! They spent hours listening to his stories about floating\n[[01:05],[01:06]] B: Um.\n[[01:07],[01:08]] B: Ummm.\n[[01:12],[01:20]] A: That's incredible! Going back to their route, did they have any unexpected challenges or funny mishaps while driving through all those different states?\n[[01:21],[01:32]] B: Oh yes! Their GPS died in South Dakota so they used paper maps. Once they accidentally drove into a cattle drive in Texas! And Lucy\n[[01:24],[01:25]] B: Sure.\n[[01:32],[01:37]] A: How did they handle being locked out of their car in the middle of their trip? That sounds stressful!\n[[01:37],[01:51]] B: A local mechanic named Rosa helped them with a coat hanger trick! She invited them for dinner too. That's how they learned the best help often comes from unexpected places. The whole trip was full of these magical moments.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A consistently asks clear, specific questions to elicit more details about a story. Speaker B provides answers that are directly on-topic and logically follow the questions. For example, when A asks about the skydiving experience [[00:00],[00:10]], B immediately provides the location, context, and feelings [[00:10],[00:21]]. This pattern continues throughout the conversation, with each of B's responses directly addressing A's preceding question (e.g., about Charlie the traveler, hidden gems, the astronaut, and car trouble). The dialogue builds a coherent and engaging narrative, with no instances of irrelevant or inconsistent responses.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the conversation flows at a quick and natural pace. There are numerous instances of brief overlaps, but these are primarily short interjections from Speaker B occurring during their own turn (e.g., [[00:13],[00:15]], [[00:30],[00:31]]). While unconventional, these are not extended overlaps where one speaker talks over the other for a prolonged period, which would be harmful to the interaction. According to the instructions, brief overlaps are acceptable. The turn-taking is otherwise smooth and responsive, maintaining a dynamic conversational flow without significant disruption.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/61",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:14]] A: Could you describe the woman who helped Max in more detail? I'm curious about her appearance and how Max felt when he first saw her and approached her for help. What made her stand out from the other people who ignored him on the streets?\n[[00:15],[01:03]] B: The woman had warm brown eyes and soft silver hair pulled back in a neat bun. She wore a long blue coat that reminded Max of the sky on clear days. When Max first saw her sitting on a park bench, he noticed how she smiled at the pigeons feeding nearby, unlike most adults who shooed them away. Max felt both hopeful and nervous as he approached her. His stomach growled loudly, giving him courage to speak up. She didn't look away like others did when he got close. Instead, she patted the bench beside her and asked if he'd like to share her sandwich. That simple act of kindness made Max feel seen for the first time in weeks. What\n[[00:29],[00:31]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:32],[00:33]] B: I see.\n[[00:34],[00:35]] B: Sure.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user asks a detailed, multi-part question about a character (the woman who helped Max), requesting information on her appearance, Max's feelings, and what made her unique. Speaker B's response is highly relevant and directly addresses all parts of the user's query. It provides a description of her appearance (\"warm brown eyes and soft silver hair,\" \"long blue coat\"), explains Max's emotional state (\"felt both hopeful and nervous\"), and details what made her stand out (her kindness to pigeons, not looking away, sharing her sandwich). The response is logically consistent and maintains topic coherence throughout.\n\n\n\nThe turn-taking between the speakers is smooth and natural. There is a one-second pause between speaker A's turn ending at [00:14] and speaker B's turn beginning at [00:15], which is an appropriate length. There are no extended overlaps between the two speakers. The transcript shows three very short utterances from speaker B occurring during their main speaking turn. While this self-interruption is slightly unusual, the utterances are extremely brief and do not disrupt the overall flow or comprehension of the main response. They function almost as momentary hesitations or thought-gathering markers rather than harmful interruptions. Thus, the interactional fluency is maintained at a high level.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/62",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Hey Neiko. What's up?\n[[00:01],[00:04]] B: Not much. Just hanging\n[[00:03],[00:11]] A: Sorry to jump in, but I wanted to ask—have you had a chance to check out that new café that just opened downtown?\n[[00:05],[00:06]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:07],[00:08]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:11],[00:15]] B: Oh, I haven't yet. I was just saying I've been hanging out with friends and stuff.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:16],[00:19]] A: That sounds fun. I've been busy with work and stuff lately.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] A: Mm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue for response relevance and interactional fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n1. A starts with a standard greeting (\"What's up?\").\n2. B gives a standard, though incomplete, reply (\"Not much. Just hanging\").\n3. A interrupts to change the topic to a new café. A acknowledges the interruption with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which makes the topic shift coherent and polite.\n4. B answers A's question directly (\"Oh, I haven't yet\") and then finishes their previous thought (\"I was just saying I've been hanging out with friends...\"). This is a very logical and natural way to handle being interrupted, demonstrating good coherence.\n5. A responds to B's statement about hanging out with friends (\"That sounds fun\"), showing that A was listening and is engaging with B's part of the conversation.\n\nThe dialogue is logically consistent and the topic progression, including the interruption, is handled naturally and coherently. All responses are relevant.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pause Analysis:**\n- There are no significant pauses between turns. The transition from B at `[00:15]` to A at `[00:16]` is only one second, which is a normal, natural pause in conversation.\n\n**Overlap Analysis:**\n- There is one main overlap from `[00:03]` to `[00:04]` where A begins speaking while B is still talking.\n- This overlap is very brief, lasting only one second.\n- Crucially, speaker A explicitly acknowledges this interruption (\"Sorry to jump in\"), which is a common and natural conversational strategy. This shows social awareness rather than a fluency breakdown. B cedes the floor, and the conversation continues smoothly.\n- The other noted overlaps (A saying \"Hmm\" and \"Mhm\" while A is also speaking) are backchannels or filled pauses within a single speaker's turn. They are not disruptive overlaps between two different speakers.\n\nThe conversation flows smoothly without any awkward pauses or disruptive, extended overlaps. The single brief interruption is handled in a way that is typical of natural human interaction.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/62",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: Your description of the peaceful summer day was wonderful. Could you tell me more about the specific types of flowers I might smell and what colors they would be in this beautiful setting?\n[[00:12],[00:25]] B: You'd likely smell sweet roses in shades of pink and red, bright yellow sunflowers standing tall, and calming purple lavender. The air would carry their mixed fragrances -\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Sure.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:20],[00:20]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:24],[00:36]] A: That sounds absolutely lovely! Now could you describe the trees making that soothing rustling sound in more detail? What kinds of trees would they be and how would their leaves look moving in the breeze?\n[[00:38],[01:05]] B: Picture tall oak trees with thick trunks and wide green leaves that whisper when the wind blows. Nearby, maple trees show off red and orange leaves that flutter like little flags. Slender birch trees with white bark add contrast, their small leaves dancing in the breeze. Together they create nature's perfect symphony of sound and movement.\n[[00:46],[00:46]] B: Sure.\n[[00:47],[00:48]] B: Really.\n[[00:49],[00:50]] B: Hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue based on Response Relevance.\n\n1. **A's first turn to B's first turn:** Speaker A asks for details about flowers (smell and color). Speaker B provides a direct and descriptive answer, mentioning \"sweet roses in shades of pink and red,\" \"bright yellow sunflowers,\" and \"calming purple lavender.\" This response is perfectly relevant and coherent.\n2. **B's first turn to A's second turn:** Speaker A positively acknowledges B's description (\"That sounds absolutely lovely!\") and then smoothly transitions to a related question about the trees. This shows good topic coherence.\n3. **A's second turn to B's second turn:** Speaker A asks about the types of trees and how their leaves look. Speaker B responds with specific details about \"oak trees,\" \"maple trees,\" and \"birch trees,\" describing their leaves and movement. The response is highly relevant and directly answers the user's question.\n\nOverall, the conversation is logically consistent, and the responses are always on topic and directly address the questions asked.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue based on Interactional Fluency, looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses between turns:**\n * Between A's first turn ([[00:11]]) and B's main response ([[00:12]]), there is a 1-second pause, which is natural.\n * Between A's second turn ([[00:36]]) and B's main response ([[00:38]]), there is a 2-second pause, which is also natural and acceptable.\n * There are no prolonged or awkward pauses in the conversation.\n\n2. **Overlaps between speakers:**\n * There is a minor, 1-second overlap where A starts speaking at [[00:24]] just before B finishes their turn at [[00:25]]. This is a common and natural feature of engaged conversation, not a harmful interruption.\n\n3. **Internal Overlaps (artifacts):**\n * The transcript shows several short utterances from speaker B (e.g., \"Sure.\", \"Hmm.\", \"Okay,okay.\") that overlap with B's own main sentences. For example, B's main response runs from [00:12] to [00:25], while the utterance \"Sure.\" from B is timed at [00:16]-[00:17]. This appears to be a transcription or system artifact rather than a true interactional fluency problem between the two speakers. The turn-taking between A and B remains smooth and uninterrupted.\n\nSince there are no long pauses and no harmful overlaps between the speakers, the interactional fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/63",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:05]] A: Hey, owner! Thanks for taking care of me while you're gone on vacation. I really appreciate it.\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:06],[00:11]] B: No problem, Alaiya. I promised I would take care of you and I meant it.\n[[00:08],[00:09]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:13],[00:21]] A: So, how are things going? Have you been feeding me twice a day and playing with me for at least thirty minutes each day like you said you\n[[00:15],[00:16]] A: Mm.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:20],[00:26]] B: Sorry to interrupt, but I wanted to mention that I also gave you some new treats I found. Do you like them?\n[[00:22],[00:24]] B: Mm.\n[[00:27],[00:35]] A: Oh, those treats are great! But I was asking about the feeding and playtime schedule. Have you been able to stick to it? It's important for my routine.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] A: Uh.\n[[00:37],[00:41]] B: Yes, I have. You're such a good cat and you deserve the best care possible.\n[[00:38],[00:39]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:42],[00:47]] A: I'm glad to hear that. I was starting to get a little worried that you might forget about me.\n[[00:44],[00:45]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:48],[00:53]] B: Don't worry, Alaiya. I could never forget about you. You're always on my mind.\n[[00:50],[00:51]] B: Mhm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance.\n\n1. **A's opening:** A thanks B for taking care of them. This sets the topic.\n2. **B's response:** B responds appropriately, saying \"No problem\" and confirming their commitment. This is relevant.\n3. **A's question:** A asks a specific question about the feeding and playtime schedule. This is a logical follow-up, staying on the topic of care.\n4. **B's interruption:** B interrupts to talk about treats. While it's an interruption, the topic of \"treats\" is still highly relevant to the overall context of pet care. B even acknowledges the interruption.\n5. **A's clarification:** A acknowledges the treats but skillfully brings the conversation back to the original, unanswered question about the schedule. This demonstrates excellent topic coherence and persistence.\n6. **B's answer:** B finally answers the question directly (\"Yes, I have\") and adds a reassuring comment. This is a perfectly relevant response.\n7. **A's reaction:** A expresses relief, which is a logical and coherent reaction to B's answer.\n8. **B's final reassurance:** B offers more reassurance, which is consistent with the conversation's tone and topic.\n\nThe dialogue is consistently on-topic and logically coherent. Even when one speaker tries to deflect, the other speaker brings the conversation back, maintaining a clear and logical flow.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n* **Pauses:**\n * `[00:05]` to `[00:06]` is a 1-second pause. Normal.\n * `[00:11]` to `[00:13]` is a 2-second pause. Acceptable in natural conversation.\n * `[00:26]` to `[00:27]` is a 1-second pause. Normal.\n * `[00:35]` to `[00:37]` is a 2-second pause. Acceptable.\n * `[00:41]` to `[00:42]` is a 1-second pause. Normal.\n * `[00:47]` to `[00:48]` is a 1-second pause. Normal.\n There are no prolonged or awkward pauses between turns. The pacing feels natural.\n\n* **Overlaps:**\n * The only true overlap between speakers occurs from `[00:20]` to `[00:21]`. Speaker A is still talking when Speaker B begins. This is a very brief (1-second) overlap.\n * Crucially, Speaker B acknowledges the interruption by saying, \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which makes the interaction feel natural and polite rather than disruptive.\n * The other transcribed lines like \"Ummm,\" \"Mhm,\" and \"That's cool\" occur within the main speaker's own turn, acting as fillers or self-feedback, not as overlaps with the other person.\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no harmful pauses or overlaps; the one brief interruption is handled in a very natural way.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/63",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hey, Mom. I picked up some groceries on the way home from work.\n[[00:03],[00:05]] B: Oh, great! What did you get?\n[[00:05],[00:10]] A: Well, I got some chicken, some vegetables, and some fruit. Plus, I got some milk and\n[[00:07],[00:08]] A: Cool.\n[[00:10],[00:13]] B: Did you remember to get the whole grain bread? I know Dad prefers that.\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: I see.\n[[00:13],[00:23]] A: Oh, I actually forgot to check if it was whole grain. I'll make sure to get it next time. Anyway, I also got a big bag of apples, so we can have those for snacks this week.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] A: I see.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:23],[00:27]] B: That sounds perfect! Thank you so much for picking up groceries today.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] B: Mm.\n[[00:28],[00:32]] A: No problem, Mom. I know you've been really busy lately.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:32],[00:40]] B: Yes, I have been very busy. But I appreciate your help. By the way, did you get enough chicken breasts for the meal prep I planned for the week?\n[[00:34],[00:35]] B: Really.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] B: Really.\n[[00:40],[00:44]] A: Oh, I got plenty of chicken breast. There's enough for everyone.\n[[00:41],[00:43]] A: Hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation follows a logical and coherent path centered around the topic of groceries. Speaker A initiates the topic, and Speaker B responds with relevant questions (\"What did you get?\", \"Did you remember to get the whole grain bread?\"). Speaker A's responses are directly related to these questions and the overall topic. The conversation naturally expands to related subjects like meal prepping for the week. Each turn is a logical follow-up to the previous one, maintaining a consistent and easy-to-follow interaction.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, awkward pauses between speaker turns; the conversation flows at a natural pace. The transcript shows several instances of a speaker overlapping with themselves (e.g., A says \"Cool\" while also speaking a longer sentence). These appear to be transcriptions of short, internal affirmations or filler words rather than disruptive overlaps between the two speakers. The few overlaps that could be considered backchannels (e.g., B's \"Mm\") are very brief and serve to affirm the speaker, which is a natural part of conversation and does not hinder fluency. Overall, the dialogue is smooth and free of disruptive interruptions.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/63",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: That sounds so romantic! Could you tell me more about the specific books and authors they bonded over during those late-night talks in college? I'm curious what kind of literature brought them together.\n[[00:11],[00:22]] B: Oh, they both loved classic authors like Fitzgerald and Hemingway, but what really connected them was discovering new poets together.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Mm.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Um.\n[[00:18],[00:18]] B: Cool.\n[[00:21],[00:32]] A: That's fascinating! Did they ever write anything together or for each other during that time? I wonder if their shared love of literature inspired any creative projects between them.\n[[00:32],[00:38]] B: Actually yes! Jack wrote Rachel love poems that he'd slip into her textbooks, and Rachel kept\n[[00:34],[00:34]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:37],[00:43]] A: Wait, what kind of zine was it? Was it about literature or something more personal? And how often did they publish it?\n[[00:44],[00:53]] B: It was a mix of both! They published it monthly with short stories, campus life observations, and Jack's terrible doodles.\n[[00:46],[00:47]] B: Um.\n[[00:48],[00:49]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:52],[01:00]] A: That sounds so sweet! Do you remember any particularly memorable or funny stories from their college days that showed how close they were becoming?\n[[01:01],[01:08]] B: There was this one time Rachel helped Jack cram for finals by rewriting his notes as romantic sonnets. He aced\n[[01:03],[01:05]] B: That's cool.\n[[01:07],[01:15]] A: That's hilarious! Did they have any special traditions or inside jokes that developed during those early months of their relationship?\n[[01:15],[01:29]] B: They had this running joke about the terrible campus coffee - called it \"love potion\" because their first kiss happened right after sharing a particularly awful cup. Every anniversary, they'd drink burnt coffee on purpose for nostalgia!\n[[01:19],[01:20]] B: Sure.\n[[01:21],[01:22]] B: Ummm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each turn logically follows the previous one, creating a coherent and engaging narrative about a couple's relationship. Speaker A asks specific, curious questions (e.g., about books, creative projects, inside jokes), and Speaker B provides detailed, relevant answers that directly address those questions (e.g., mentioning specific authors, a zine, a story about sonnets, and the \"love potion\" coffee tradition). The conversation stays focused on the central topic and develops it naturally from one point to the next without any breaks in logic or coherence.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long, awkward pauses between speaker turns; the transitions are smooth and natural, typically with only a one-second gap. There are several instances of minor overlap, such as A starting to speak one second before B finishes their turn (e.g., at [00:37], [00:52], [01:07]). However, these overlaps are very brief (1 second) and are not disruptive. They function as natural interjections in an enthusiastic conversation, indicating that the listener is engaged and ready to respond, rather than being a sign of poor turn-taking. The flow of the conversation feels natural and fluid.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/64",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: That sounds perfect for the toppings, but could you walk me through the dough-making process in more detail since I'm a beginner? I want to make sure I get the texture and rising time just right.\n[[00:10],[00:18]] B: Sure! First, mix 4 cups of flour with a teaspoon of salt and a packet of yeast. Then slowly\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Right.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Mm.\n[[00:17],[00:26]] A: Wait, how warm should the water be exactly? And should I use all-purpose flour or something special like bread flour for better results?\n[[00:26],[00:36]] B: The water should be around 110 degrees—warm but not hot. Bread flour works best for chewiness, but all-purpose is fine too.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Really.\n[[00:35],[00:41]] A: What if my dough doesn’t rise properly? Could the room temperature affect it, and how can I fix it if that happens?\n[[00:42],[00:50]] B: Yes, cold rooms slow rising. If that happens, place the bowl near a warm oven or in sunlight. If it still doesn’t\n[[00:44],[00:47]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:49],[00:56]] A: Got it! One last thing—should I preheat the baking sheet or use parchment paper to prevent sticking when I bake the pizza?\n[[00:57],[01:09]] B: Preheating a baking stone or steel gives the crispiest crust, but parchment works too for easy cleanup. Just slide the pizza onto the hot surface carefully to avoid burning yourself.\n[[01:00],[01:01]] B: That's cool.\n[[01:02],[01:03]] B: Cool.\n[[01:04],[01:05]] B: Um.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe conversation follows a logical question-and-answer format. Speaker A is a beginner asking for instructions on making pizza dough, and Speaker B provides clear, direct answers.\n- A's first turn [[00:00],[00:10]] sets the topic: dough-making details.\n- B's response [[00:10],[00:18]] directly starts the instructions.\n- A's subsequent questions [[00:17],[00:26]], [[00:35],[00:41]], [[00:49],[00:56]] are all relevant follow-ups, asking for clarification on water temperature, flour type, rising issues, and baking techniques.\n- B's answers [[00:26],[00:36]], [[00:42],[00:50]], [[00:57],[01:09]] are consistently on-topic, providing the specific information requested by A.\nThe dialogue is coherent and maintains a consistent topic throughout. The responses are highly relevant and logical.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very natural.\n- **Pauses:** There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns. The one-second gaps between turns (e.g., [[00:41],[00:42]]) are natural and do not disrupt the flow.\n- **Overlaps:** There are a few instances of minor overlap where A begins asking a follow-up question just as B is finishing their answer (e.g., A at [00:17] overlaps with B ending at [00:18]). These overlaps are very short (1 second) and are typical of an engaged, interactive conversation rather than being disruptive. They show that A is actively listening and ready with the next question.\n- **Backchannels:** Speaker B provides frequent, short backchannels (\"Right.\", \"Mm hmm.\", \"Uh huh.\") while A is speaking. These are signs of active listening and contribute positively to the conversational flow, making the dialogue feel natural and collaborative.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/64",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:05]] A: I need to find out if there's a train going to Stansted Airport that leaves after 12:30.\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: Cool.\n[[00:06],[00:16]] B: We have a train leaving on Friday by 12:40 from Cambridge to Stansted Airport, but we need to know your departure point and date of departure to serve you better—\n[[00:09],[00:10]] B: Really.\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: Cool.\n[[00:15],[00:17]] A: Yes, I will be leaving on Tuesday.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: When would you like to arrive by?\n[[00:20],[00:22]] A: Tuesday would be ideal for me.\n[[00:22],[00:32]] B: The best fit for you from the search list is the 12:40 train leaving Cambridge on Tuesday to arrive Stansted Airport by 13:03.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] B: Sure.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] B: I see.\n[[00:33],[00:35]] A: That works, may I please have the reference number?\n[[00:36],[00:40]] B: Actually, it will arrive by 13:08. Does that work for you?\n[[00:37],[00:38]] B: Right.\n[[00:41],[00:43]] A: Yes. I need it for 8 people.\n[[00:43],[00:51]] B: Booking was successful. Your reference number is 2QS7T2UC. Do you need anything else?\n[[00:45],[00:46]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:47],[00:48]] B: I see.\n[[00:52],[00:58]] A: Great, I also need to stay at the University Arms Hotel— preferably with rooms close to each other if possible.\n[[00:53],[00:54]] A: Sure.\n[[00:55],[00:56]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:58],[01:03]] B: Before we proceed with the hotel booking, do you need any special accommodations for the group of 8?\n[[01:04],[01:08]] A: No special accommodations needed. Just the hotel booking, please.\n[[01:09],[01:14]] B: Okay, I can help with that! What day would you like to check in and how long will you be staying?",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B correctly identifies the need for more information (departure date) after Speaker A's initial request. Speaker B then provides a relevant train option based on the new information. The conversation logically progresses from finding a train, to correcting details (arrival time), to booking it for a specific number of people. When Speaker A introduces a second, related task (hotel booking), Speaker B seamlessly transitions, asking relevant clarifying questions based on information from the first part of the conversation (the group of 8). Every turn is a logical and coherent response to the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. The pauses between turns are consistently one second long, which is natural for a conversation and indicates smooth turn-taking. There are a few instances of very minor overlaps (e.g., [[00:15],[00:17]] A and [[00:15],[00:16]] B), but these are only one second long and are typical of natural conversation where a person begins to respond just as the other is finishing their sentence. There are no prolonged, disruptive overlaps or long, awkward pauses that would harm the conversational flow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/64",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:09]] A: What are the key elements that make a movie successful, and how can I apply them when writing my own screenplays to create something truly captivating for audiences?\n[[00:09],[00:19]] B: Movies that really work tend to have three main things. First, strong characters that audiences connect with\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: Uh.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:18],[00:25]] A: Wait, could you explain more about character development specifically? How do I make my characters feel real and memorable to viewers?\n[[00:26],[00:36]] B: Absolutely! The best characters have clear motivations and flaws—they feel like real people. Give them distinct voices through\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Really.\n[[00:35],[00:42]] A: What about plot structure? I’ve heard about three-act structure but I’m not sure how to implement it effectively in my writing process.\n[[00:43],[00:50]] B: The three-act structure is simple when you break it down. Act one introduces characters and the main\n[[00:45],[00:45]] B: Cool.\n[[00:46],[00:47]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:49],[00:55]] A: Sorry to interrupt, but how long should each act typically be for a standard feature-length screenplay?\n[[00:55],[01:04]] B: For a two-hour movie, act one usually runs about 30 minutes, act two takes up most of the middle\n[[00:58],[01:00]] B: Mm.\n[[01:03],[01:10]] A: Where can I find professional writers or mentors who could give me honest feedback on my screenplays and help me improve my craft?\n[[01:11],[01:21]] B: There are several great options! Screenwriting contests often provide expert notes. Online communities\n[[01:14],[01:14]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[01:15],[01:16]] B: Hmm.\n[[01:20],[01:27]] A: How do I know if a screenplay contest is worth entering? There are so many out there and I don’t want to waste money on scams.\n[[01:28],[01:36]] B: Stick with well-known contests like Nicholl or Austin. Check if judges are industry professionals. Look\n[[01:31],[01:31]] B: Right.\n[[01:35],[01:42]] A: What’s the best way to network with other screenwriters and filmmakers who might want to collaborate on projects in the future?\n[[01:42],[01:56]] B: Film festivals are perfect for meeting people face-to-face. Online platforms like Coverfly help too. Just remember—the best connections happen when you focus on building real relationships.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue follows a clear question-and-answer format. Speaker A asks a series of specific questions about screenwriting, and Speaker B provides direct, relevant, and helpful answers. The conversation maintains a consistent topic of screenwriting, and each turn logically follows the previous one. For example, when A asks about character development, B explains how to create real and memorable characters. When A asks about the three-act structure, B begins to explain it. Every response from B is coherent and directly addresses A's inquiries.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long pauses between turns, indicating a smooth and engaging conversational flow. There are several instances of Speaker A interrupting or overlapping with Speaker B's turn (e.g., at [00:18], [00:35], [00:49]). However, these are brief, natural-sounding interruptions typical of an eager person asking follow-up questions. They are not extended, competitive overlaps where both speakers talk over each other. Speaker B yields the floor appropriately each time. The short interjections by B (e.g., \"Mhm,\" \"Cool\") within their own turns are natural speech fillers and do not disrupt the flow. Overall, the interaction feels dynamic and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/65",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Hey! Did you go running this morning?\n[[00:02],[00:06]] B: Yeah, I just did a short warm up and ran for half an\n[[00:03],[00:04]] B: Um.\n[[00:05],[00:10]] A: Half an hour? That's a solid run! Running is great exercise.\n[[00:07],[00:08]] A: Really.\n[[00:10],[00:17]] B: I totally agree. But swimming is better for keeping your joints healthy, especially if you're running frequently.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:18],[00:22]] A: Keeping cool, especially in this heat, right? Do you swim regularly?\n[[00:19],[00:20]] A: Mhm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A begins by asking a direct question about running. Speaker B provides a direct and relevant answer. Speaker A then comments on B's response, keeping the topic on running. Speaker B agrees and then logically expands the topic from running to swimming, another form of exercise, making a relevant comparison. Speaker A acknowledges B's point about swimming and asks a relevant follow-up question. The conversation flows logically and coherently, with each turn directly addressing or building upon the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There is a brief, one-second overlap from [00:05] to [00:06] where speaker A anticipates and finishes speaker B's sentence (\"half an hour\"). This is a common and natural feature of conversation and does not hinder communication. The other overlaps are self-interjections or hesitations (\"Um\", \"Ummm\", \"Really\", \"Mhm\") which are also typical of natural speech. There are no extended, disruptive overlaps or long, awkward pauses between turns. The turn-taking is smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/65",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:17]] A: Could you tell me more about how patience helped improve your relationship with your father? What specific changes did you notice in how you interacted with each other after you became more patient? I'm really interested in understanding how this skill transformed your family dynamics.\n[[00:18],[00:34]] B: Becoming more patient completely changed my relationship with my dad. Before, we often argued because I'd get frustrated quickly. But when he got sick, I learned to listen without interrupting and understand\n[[00:23],[00:24]] B: Mm.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] B: Sure.\n[[00:33],[00:51]] A: That's really touching to hear about your father. Could you share some examples of how patience helped you in other parts of life, like at work or with personal challenges? I'd love to know how this skill helped you handle tough situations outside family relationships.\n[[00:52],[01:11]] B: Patience has helped me tremendously at work, especially when dealing with difficult projects or coworkers. Instead of getting frustrated with setbacks, I now take time to understand different viewpoints. This approach has helped me solve problems more effectively and build better working relationships with my colleagues over time.\n[[00:57],[00:58]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:59],[01:00]] B: Sure.\n[[01:01],[01:02]] B: Uh huh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue based on response relevance and interactional fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n1. Speaker A's first question ([00:00]-[00:17]) asks specifically how patience improved the relationship with their father.\n2. Speaker B's response ([00:18]-[00:34]) directly answers this by explaining that they used to argue but learned to listen after their father got sick. This is a relevant, coherent, and logical response.\n3. Speaker A's second question ([00:33]-[00:51]) acknowledges the previous answer and logically transitions the topic to ask how patience helped in other areas of life, like work.\n4. Speaker B's final response ([00:52]-[01:11]) directly addresses the question about work, explaining how patience helps with difficult projects and coworkers.\nThe conversation maintains a clear and logical topic progression. Each response is directly relevant to the preceding question. The topic coherence is excellent.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to analyze the interactional fluency, looking for long pauses or extended overlaps.\n\n**Fluency Analysis:**\n1. **Pauses:**\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's first turn ending at [00:17] and B's turn starting at [00:18]. This is a natural conversational pause.\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's second turn ending at [00:51] and B's final turn starting at [00:52]. This is also a natural pause.\n * There are no prolonged, disruptive pauses between turns.\n\n2. **Overlaps:**\n * There is a very brief, 1-second overlap between B's turn ([00:18]-[00:34]) and A's turn ([00:33]-[00:51]). Speaker A begins speaking just as speaker B is finishing their sentence. This is a common and natural feature of conversation and does not disrupt the flow.\n * The short interjections from speaker B during their own speaking turns (e.g., [00:23]-[00:24]) are not overlaps with the other speaker and are too brief to be disruptive.\n * There are no extended or harmful overlaps.\n\nThe interaction flows smoothly and naturally without significant disruptions.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/66",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:07]] A: Hi there! I'm just on my way to my friend's house and I saw you playing fetch with your dog. That looks like so much\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:04],[00:04]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:06],[00:10]] B: Sorry to jump in, but do you have a dog too? You seem really interested.\n[[00:08],[00:09]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:10],[00:14]] A: Not at the moment, but I've always loved dogs. What kind of dog is it?\n[[00:12],[00:13]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:15],[00:20]] B: It's a golden retriever. They're really good dogs. But they need a lot of exercise.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:20],[00:23]] A: That makes sense. Do you live around here?\n[[00:21],[00:22]] A: Really.\n[[00:24],[00:29]] B: Yeah, just a few blocks away. We come to the park every day to play fetch and get some fresh air.\n[[00:25],[00:27]] B: I see.\n[[00:30],[00:40]] A: That sounds like a great routine! I'm sure your dog appreciates it. Dogs are such wonderful creatures, aren't they? So loyal and always so happy to see you when you come home.\n[[00:33],[00:34]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:34],[00:35]] A: I see.\n[[00:41],[00:48]] B: Absolutely! By the way, do you know any other good parks around here? We're always looking for new places to explore.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Cool.\n[[00:48],[00:58]] A: They definitely are. I couldn't imagine life without my furry friend by my side. And yes, there's another park a bit further down the road that's quite nice.\n[[00:59],[01:03]] B: Aww, that's so sweet. Well, I should get going. It was nice meeting you!\n[[01:04],[01:06]] A: Nice meeting you too. Have a great day!",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and topic coherence. The conversation starts with an observation about a dog, naturally progresses to the topic of dog ownership, the specific breed, the dog's needs and routine, and then to other local parks. Each turn is a logical and relevant response to the previous one. For example, when B mentions their dog needs a lot of exercise, A logically follows up by asking about their routine and location. There is one significant logical inconsistency: speaker A first says they do not have a dog \"at the moment\" ([00:10]), but later says, \"I couldn't imagine life without my furry friend by my side\" ([00:48]). While this is a clear contradiction, it is an isolated error in an otherwise coherent and well-structured conversation. The overall topic progression remains logical and easy to follow.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long or awkward pauses between turns; the timing is natural and conversational. The brief, one-second gaps between speakers are appropriate for a real-time interaction. The one instance of a speaker interrupting another at [00:06] is handled politely (\"Sorry to jump in\"), making it feel like a natural, enthusiastic interjection rather than a disruptive overlap. The frequent use of short backchannels like \"Mm hmm\" and \"Yeah, yeah\" further contributes to the smooth and engaging flow of the dialogue.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/67",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: I was really moved by that description of mother-child bonding. Could you tell me more about the specific ways babies show their connection to their mothers through their behavior and responses?\n[[00:12],[00:18]] B: Babies show their bond in many sweet ways. They recognize their mother's voice right\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Cool.\n[[00:18],[00:30]] A: That's fascinating how babies naturally connect with their mothers. What are the most important benefits that come from this special bond for both the child and the mother throughout their lives?\n[[00:31],[00:46]] B: This bond helps babies feel safe and develop trust. It boosts their brain development and emotional health. For mothers, it creates strong nurturing instincts and deep joy. The connection lays the foundation for all future relationships the child will have.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:38],[00:39]] B: Uh.\n[[00:40],[00:40]] B: That's cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance.\n\n1. **A's first turn [[00:00],[00:11]]**: A asks for specific ways babies show their connection to their mothers. This is a clear, on-topic question.\n2. **B's first turn [[00:12],[00:18]]**: B begins to answer by stating that babies recognize their mother's voice. This is a direct and relevant response to A's question.\n3. **A's second turn [[00:18],[00:30]]**: A asks a follow-up question about the long-term benefits of the mother-child bond. This is a logical extension of the initial topic, demonstrating coherent topic development.\n4. **B's second turn [[00:31],[00:46]]**: B provides a detailed and relevant answer to A's second question, covering benefits for both the child (safety, trust, brain development) and the mother (nurturing instincts, joy). The response is logically consistent and directly addresses the prompt.\n\nOverall, the conversation maintains a clear and consistent topic. The responses are directly relevant to the questions asked, and the dialogue progresses logically from one point to the next.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses**:\n * Between A's first turn and B's first turn: There is a 1-second pause ([00:11] to [00:12]). This is a natural and acceptable length for a pause in conversation.\n * Between B's first turn and A's second turn: The transition happens at the same second ([00:18]), indicating no significant pause.\n * Between A's second turn and B's second turn: There is a 1-second pause ([00:30] to [00:31]). This is also a natural conversational pause.\n There are no prolonged, awkward pauses between speaker turns.\n\n2. **Overlaps**:\n * The transcript shows B uttering \"Cool.\" [[00:15],[00:16]], \"Uh huh.\" [[00:36],[00:37]], \"Uh.\" [[00:38],[00:39]], and \"That's cool.\" [[00:40],[00:40]] during their own speaking turns. These are not overlaps with speaker A but are self-interruptions or fillers. They do not disrupt the flow of the conversation between the two speakers.\n * There are no instances where speaker A and speaker B are talking over each other. The turn-taking is clean and smooth.\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The transitions are smooth, pauses are natural, and there are no disruptive overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/67",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:15]] A: Could you explain in more detail how the Sub section works in 808 Studio and what makes it different from other bass synthesizers? I'm particularly interested in how the Fat mode and drive features enhance the sound quality compared to regular bass synths.\n[[00:15],[00:26]] B: The Sub section is all about deep, powerful bass tones. What sets it apart is how it combines multiple features to create rich low-end sounds.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:25],[00:36]] A: Wait, could you explain exactly how the Fat mode layers waveforms? Does it just double them or is there more processing happening behind the scenes to make it sound so full?\n[[00:36],[00:49]] B: Good question! Fat mode doesn't just double the sound - it actually uses phase-shifted copies of the waveform with slight detuning. This creates that wide, thick sound while keeping the\n[[00:40],[00:41]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:42],[00:43]] B: Mm.\n[[00:44],[00:45]] B: I see.\n[[00:49],[01:01]] A: That sounds interesting, but how does this compare to using separate bass tracks in my DAW? Wouldn't layering multiple bass sounds achieve similar results without needing the Fat mode?\n[[01:01],[01:14]] B: While you could layer tracks manually, the Fat mode does it more efficiently with perfect phase alignment. It saves CPU and gives you instant control over the thickness with\n[[01:05],[01:06]] B: Uh huh.\n[[01:07],[01:07]] B: Hmm.\n[[01:09],[01:09]] B: Uh.\n[[01:13],[01:23]] A: Speaking of workflow, you mentioned real-time generation earlier - could you give me some specific examples of how this helps when I'm trying different bass sounds during a production session?\n[[01:24],[01:36]] B: Absolutely! Imagine tweaking the decay on your kick while the track plays, or changing the waveform to fit a new chord progression. With samples, you'd have to stop\n[[01:30],[01:31]] B: Uh.\n[[01:35],[01:44]] A: That does sound useful, but what about CPU usage? Wouldn't all this real-time processing put more strain on my system compared to using simple audio samples?\n[[01:45],[02:03]] B: Actually, 808 Studio is optimized to be very efficient. While it uses more CPU than playing back samples, it's far less demanding than running multiple plugins. The engine is streamlined specifically for bass synthesis, so you get great performance even on older systems.\n[[01:50],[01:51]] B: Sure.\n[[01:52],[01:53]] B: Ummm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B consistently provides direct and informative answers to Speaker A's questions about the 808 Studio software. For instance, when A asks specifically how \"Fat mode\" works ([00:25]), B gives a precise technical explanation about phase-shifted copies and detuning ([00:36]-[00:49]). Similarly, when A raises a concern about CPU usage ([01:35]), B addresses it directly by explaining the software's optimization ([01:45]-[02:03]). The conversation progresses logically, with each of A's questions building upon B's previous answers, maintaining a clear and coherent focus on the topic.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the conversation flows smoothly. The overlaps that do occur are very brief (e.g., [00:25]-[00:26], [01:13]-[01:14]) and function as natural interruptions or turn-taking cues, rather than disruptive talk-overs. Furthermore, the transcript shows numerous instances of Speaker B providing short backchannels like \"Uh huh\" and \"I see\" while A is speaking. These are not harmful overlaps but rather indicators of active listening, which contribute positively to the natural feel of the conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/68",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hey John, can I talk to you for a second?\n[[00:02],[00:04]] B: Yeah, sure. What's up?\n[[00:06],[00:13]] A: I wanted to talk to you about my workload. I feel like I'm being given too much and I'm starting to\n[[00:09],[00:10]] A: Uh.\n[[00:12],[00:16]] B: Fall behind? I understand. Can you give me a rundown of what you're currently handling?\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Really.\n[[00:18],[00:32]] A: Well, I'm currently working on the Johnson account, the XYZ project, and the website redesign. Plus, I'm trying to keep up with my daily tasks and responding to client requests, which are coming in quite frequently.\n[[00:22],[00:23]] A: Mm.\n[[00:24],[00:25]] A: Uh.\n[[00:26],[00:27]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:33],[00:46]] B: Emails, right. That does sound like a lot. Let's see if we can redistribute some of your workload. Maybe we can have someone else work on the website redesign while you focus on the other projects.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] B: Um.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:48],[00:50]] A: That would be great, thank you.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the provided dialogue for response relevance and interactional fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n1. Speaker A initiates the conversation by asking to speak with Speaker B about their workload.\n2. Speaker B agrees and asks for more details (\"What's up?\").\n3. Speaker A explains the problem, stating they feel overworked.\n4. Speaker B shows understanding, even completing A's sentence (\"Fall behind?\"), and asks for specifics.\n5. Speaker A lists their projects and tasks.\n6. Speaker B acknowledges that it is a heavy workload and immediately proposes a concrete solution (redistributing the website redesign).\n7. Speaker A accepts the solution gratefully.\n\nThe entire conversation is highly coherent and logical. Each turn is a direct and relevant response to the previous one. The dialogue effectively identifies a problem and moves toward a resolution. There are no irrelevant tangents or logical inconsistencies.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pause Analysis:**\n- There is a 2-second pause between B's question ([[00:02],[00:04]]) and A's answer ([[00:06],[00:13]]). This is a natural thinking pause and does not disrupt the flow.\n- Other pauses between turns are 1-2 seconds long, which is completely normal for a natural conversation. There are no prolonged or awkward silences.\n\n**Overlap Analysis:**\n- There is a brief overlap between A's turn ([[00:06],[00:13]]) and B's turn ([[00:12],[00:16]]). Speaker B is completing Speaker A's sentence (\"Fall behind?\"). This is a cooperative overlap that shows active listening and engagement, not a disruptive interruption.\n- The overlap from B's \"Really.\" ([[00:14],[00:15]]) is a short backchannel cue, indicating B is listening and processing what A is saying. This is a common feature of natural dialogue and is not harmful.\n\nOverall, the interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth, and the minor overlaps are cooperative and contribute to the natural feel of the conversation rather than hindering it.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/69",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: That sounds absolutely magical! Could you tell me more about what made your grandmother so special to you and how this moment with the fireflies changed your relationship with her?\n[[00:12],[00:20]] B: My grandmother was my favorite person because she always made time for me. She had this way of turning\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:19],[00:32]] A: I love how you describe the fireflies dancing in patterns—it sounds like a fairy tale! Do you think this experience influenced how you see nature or special moments with loved ones now as an adult?\n[[00:33],[00:54]] B: Absolutely! That night taught me to slow down and really notice the world around me. Even now, when I see fireflies, I think of my grandmother and that warm summer evening. It reminds me to cherish quiet moments with people I love because those are often the most meaningful. Nature feels full of little miracles because of memories like that one.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] B: Right.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:43],[00:45]] B: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance.\n\n1. **A's first turn ([00:00]-[00:11]):** A asks about the grandmother's special qualities and how the firefly incident affected their relationship.\n2. **B's first turn ([00:12]-[00:20]):** B begins to answer the first part of the question, explaining that the grandmother always made time for them. B is interrupted before they can answer the second part. The response is directly relevant.\n3. **A's second turn ([00:19]-[00:32]):** A builds on the magical theme mentioned by B and asks a new, related question about how the experience influenced B's current perspective on nature and loved ones. This is a coherent and logical follow-up.\n4. **B's second turn ([00:33]-[00:54]):** B provides a detailed and thoughtful answer that directly addresses A's question. B explains how the memory taught them to cherish quiet moments and see miracles in nature.\n\nThe conversation maintains a clear and consistent topic. Each speaker's turn is a logical and relevant response or follow-up to the previous turn. The dialogue is coherent from start to finish.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:**\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's turn ending at [00:11] and B's turn starting at [00:12]. This is a natural gap for turn-taking.\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's turn ending at [00:32] and B's turn starting at [00:33]. This is also a natural turn-taking gap.\n * There are no prolonged or awkward pauses in the conversation.\n\n2. **Overlaps:**\n * **[00:15]-[00:16]**: B says \"Mhm\" while A is speaking. This is a very short, common backchannel indicating active listening and is not disruptive.\n * **[00:19]-[00:20]**: A starts speaking while B is still finishing their sentence. This is a clear overlap/interruption. A cuts B off. However, the conversation flows smoothly into A's next question, and B doesn't seem thrown off. While an interruption, it feels like an enthusiastic interjection rather than a rude cutoff, and it doesn't derail the conversation's fluency.\n * **[00:39]-[00:45]**: B provides several short backchannels (\"Right,\" \"Mm hmm,\" \"Really\") while A is speaking. These are all examples of brief, acceptable overlaps that enhance the interactional feel by showing B is engaged.\n\nOverall, the flow is very natural. The one clear interruption at [00:19] is handled smoothly, and the other overlaps are positive signs of engagement. The pacing is good with no awkward silences.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/69",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: Can siblings who grew apart as adults find ways to reconnect later in life? I really miss my brother and wonder what steps we could take to rebuild our relationship.\n[[00:11],[00:19]] B: Absolutely! Many siblings reconnect successfully later in life. It does take effort from both sides, but\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Mm.\n[[00:18],[00:29]] A: That's encouraging! But how exactly should I begin that first conversation with my brother? I don't want to overwhelm him or bring up painful memories right away.\n[[00:29],[00:36]] B: Great question! Start simple—maybe send a text or call just to say you've been\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Really.\n[[00:33],[00:33]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:35],[00:41]] A: What if he seems hesitant or doesn't respond right away? Should I give him space or try again later?\n[[00:41],[00:48]] B: Definitely give him time—people process things differently. Wait a few weeks before reaching out again. When\n[[00:44],[00:46]] B: Really.\n[[00:47],[00:53]] A: That makes sense. But what if past conflicts come up? How do we handle those without making things worse?\n[[00:54],[01:01]] B: If tough topics arise, acknowledge them but don't dwell. Say something like \"I know we've had differences,\n[[00:56],[00:57]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:58],[00:59]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[01:00],[01:07]] A: That sounds like good advice. Do you think meeting in person would help, or should we take things slowly with calls and texts first?\n[[01:08],[01:21]] B: Starting with calls or texts is usually best. Once you've rebuilt some comfort, suggest a casual meet-up—maybe coffee or a walk. Neutral settings work well for these reunions.\n[[01:12],[01:13]] B: Mm.\n[[01:14],[01:14]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[01:15],[01:16]] B: Mm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A initiates the conversation with a clear question about reconnecting with a sibling. Speaker B provides a direct, encouraging, and relevant answer. Throughout the interaction, Speaker A asks a series of logical follow-up questions, exploring different facets of the problem (how to start, what if he's hesitant, how to handle past conflict, etc.). Speaker B consistently addresses each of A's questions with specific, practical, and helpful advice. The conversation maintains a coherent and logical flow, staying on topic from beginning to end without any digressions or inconsistencies.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the transitions are smooth and natural, with typical pauses of only about one second. The overlaps that occur are brief (around one second) and are typical of natural turn-taking, where a speaker begins just as the other is finishing. Furthermore, Speaker B uses frequent, short backchannels (\"Mhm,\" \"Really,\" \"Okay, okay\") while the other person is speaking or during their own turn. These are not disruptive overlaps but rather indicators of active listening and engagement, contributing positively to the conversational flow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/69",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: So, you're engaged?\n[[00:03],[00:04]] B: Yeah, I am.\n[[00:04],[00:07]] A: Congratulations! Who's the lucky girl?\n[[00:07],[00:10]] B: Her name is Sarah. She's\n[[00:09],[00:16]] A: Sorry to interrupt, but how did you know she was the one? I mean, what made you decide to pop the question?\n[[00:12],[00:13]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:17],[00:27]] B: Well, it's hard to explain, but everything just felt right with her. She's amazing, and we've been through so much together. When you know, you just know.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:22],[00:23]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:28],[00:30]] A: She sounds it. When's the big day?\n[[00:31],[00:36]] B: We're not sure yet. We're just enjoying being engaged for now and taking our time to plan everything out.\n[[00:33],[00:34]] B: Mm.\n[[00:37],[00:42]] A: That makes sense. Being engaged is a big deal. It's a huge commitment.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:43],[00:49]] B: Yeah, it is. But it's worth it, you know? When you find the right person, it's all worth it.\n[[00:45],[00:46]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:49],[00:57]] A: I guess so...I mean, I haven't found the right person yet, so I wouldn't know firsthand. But I'm happy for you nonetheless.\n[[00:52],[00:53]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:57],[00:58]] B: Thanks, man.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in this dialogue are consistently relevant and logically coherent. The conversation follows a natural progression, starting with the announcement of an engagement and moving to related topics like how the decision was made, the wedding date, and the significance of commitment. Speaker A's questions are direct and appropriate follow-ups to Speaker B's statements, and B's answers are on-topic and expand the conversation. There are no abrupt topic shifts or instances of misunderstanding.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth, with no awkwardly long pauses between speakers. The brief 1-second gaps between turns are typical of a natural conversation. There is one significant overlap from [00:09] to [00:10], but Speaker A explicitly acknowledges it by saying, \"Sorry to interrupt.\" This makes the interruption a natural feature of an engaged and enthusiastic conversation rather than a fluency flaw. Other minor overlaps are backchanneling cues (e.g., \"Mhm,\" \"Yeah, yeah\"), which enhance the conversational flow by showing active listening.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/70",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Have you ever been depressed?\n[[00:02],[00:04]] B: Not that I can remember.\n[[00:04],[00:06]] A: Do you think you'd ever get depressed?\n[[00:07],[00:09]] B: Probably, but not for a long time.\n[[00:10],[00:13]] A: That's good. What do you think causes depression?\n[[00:11],[00:12]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:13],[00:15]] B: A chemical imbalance in the brain?\n[[00:16],[00:25]] A: Hmm, that's interesting. I didn't know that. I guess we're all different. What's yours\n[[00:19],[00:20]] A: Sure.\n[[00:21],[00:21]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:23],[00:30]] B: Sorry to jump in, but when you say \"we're all different,\" do you mean that everyone has a different chemical balance in their brain?\n[[00:25],[00:26]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:30],[00:37]] A: Yes, exactly. My brain has too many chemicals. I'm afraid the balance will get thrown off and I'll get depressed.\n[[00:34],[00:35]] A: I see.\n[[00:38],[00:39]] B: Is that scary?\n[[00:39],[00:43]] A: It is a little. I wouldn't want to live that way.\n[[00:40],[00:42]] A: Right.\n[[00:43],[00:50]] B: I think you'd probably find ways to cope. I imagine it's very difficult to live with those kinds of fears on a daily basis.\n[[00:45],[00:46]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:47],[00:48]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:51],[00:55]] A: Depression, yes. Exactly, that's what I'm afraid of.\n[[00:52],[00:53]] A: Sure.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains strong topic coherence throughout the interaction. It begins with a general question about depression and smoothly transitions into a more specific discussion about the causes of depression and personal fears related to it. Speaker B's question at [00:23] (\"...when you say 'we're all different,' do you mean...\") is an excellent example of maintaining relevance, as it seeks to clarify A's preceding statement to ensure mutual understanding. All responses are logically connected and contribute to the development of the conversation.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns. The most significant overlap occurs from [00:23] to [00:25], where B interrupts A. However, this is handled very naturally; B explicitly apologizes for interrupting (\"Sorry to jump in...\") in order to ask a clarifying question, which is a common and acceptable feature of fluent conversation. A cedes the floor, and the conversation continues smoothly. Other instances of overlapping speech are minor backchannels or filler words from the speaker themselves (e.g., A saying \"Mhm\" at [00:11] while also speaking), which do not disrupt the turn-taking flow between the two participants.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/70",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:09]] A: That's a great start, but could you make it even simpler while keeping that uplifting feeling? Maybe something shorter that would work well as a motivational phrase?\n[[00:09],[00:17]] B: Absolutely! How about this version: \"When hands, hearts, and minds come together,\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: Really.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:16],[00:23]] A: I like that, but could we add a bit more energy to it? Something that really makes people feel inspired when they hear it out loud?\n[[00:23],[00:32]] B: Got it! Let's try: \"When hands take action, hearts believe, and minds imagine—that's\n[[00:26],[00:27]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:28],[00:28]] B: I see.\n[[00:31],[00:38]] A: That's much better! Now could you break down why this version works so well for spoken delivery compared to the original?\n[[00:38],[00:46]] B: Sure! The shorter phrases and action words like \"take,\" \"believe,\" and \"imagine\" make it punchy. The pause\n[[00:41],[00:41]] B: Mm.\n[[00:42],[00:44]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:45],[00:53]] A: That makes perfect sense. One last thing—could you suggest how to deliver this with the right tone and pacing when saying it aloud to an audience?\n[[00:54],[01:12]] B: Definitely! Start strong with \"When hands take action,\" then slow slightly for \"hearts believe.\" Speed up slightly through \"and minds imagine,\" then pause before the powerful finish. Put extra energy on \"real change begins!\" to land the inspiration.\n[[00:59],[01:00]] B: Uh huh.\n[[01:01],[01:03]] B: Uh huh.\n[[01:04],[01:05]] B: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B consistently provides direct and logical answers to Speaker A's requests. The conversation follows a coherent path, starting with a request for a simpler phrase, moving to a request for more energy, then to an analysis of the final phrase, and concluding with delivery advice. Each of Speaker B's turns directly builds upon Speaker A's preceding question or comment, showing a clear understanding and maintaining the topic throughout.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between turns; the transition from one speaker to the next is smooth and natural. For example, there is only a one-second pause between A's turn ending at [00:53] and B's turn beginning at [00:54], which is typical for a natural conversation. The transcript indicates several short interjections from Speaker B (e.g., \"Really,\" \"Yeah, yeah,\" \"I see\"). These are timestamped within B's main speaking turns, suggesting they are brief fillers or self-affirmations rather than interruptions of Speaker A. There are no extended overlaps that disrupt the flow of communication. The overall pace is seamless.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/70",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Hey, Sarah. How's it going?\n[[00:02],[00:04]] B: Not too bad. How are you?\n[[00:04],[00:11]] A: Good, thanks. I just finished shaving my face and it feels so good to have a clean shave. It's something that I've been wanting to\n[[00:06],[00:07]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:08],[00:09]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:10],[00:15]] B: Oh, really? I've never thought about shaving my face before. What made you want to try it?\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: Sure.\n[[00:16],[00:29]] A: I don't know. I just wanted to try something new, I guess. Plus, all the girls in magazines have perfect skin and I thought maybe if I shaved my face, my skin would look as flawless as theirs.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] A: Um.\n[[00:22],[00:23]] A: I see.\n[[00:24],[00:24]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:29],[00:34]] B: Wait, did it actually make a difference? I mean, does your skin feel any different now?\n[[00:31],[00:33]] B: Cool.\n[[00:36],[00:43]] A: It does feel smoother, but I was going to say I thought my skin would be glowing or something. Anyway, it didn't hurt at all, which was a relief.\n[[00:38],[00:39]] A: Uh.\n[[00:43],[00:51]] B: That's good to hear. Well, I think you look great with a clean shave. Let me know if you ever decide to do it again so I can try it too!\n[[00:47],[00:47]] B: Uh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for Response Relevance.\n\n1. **A's opening:** A starts the conversation by sharing a personal experience: \"I just finished shaving my face...\"\n2. **B's response:** B asks a relevant follow-up question: \"What made you want to try it?\" This directly addresses A's statement and encourages further conversation.\n3. **A's explanation:** A provides a coherent reason, mentioning the desire to try something new and the influence of media portrayals of \"perfect skin.\" This response is logical and directly answers B's question.\n4. **B's next question:** B asks for the results: \"Wait, did it actually make a difference?\" This is a natural and logical continuation of the topic.\n5. **A's answer:** A describes the outcome—smoother skin but not the \"glowing\" effect they hoped for. This is a relevant and informative answer.\n6. **B's conclusion:** B offers a supportive comment (\"I think you look great...\") and expresses interest in trying it too. This is a socially appropriate and relevant way to close the topic.\n\nThe dialogue is consistently on-topic. Each turn logically follows the previous one, creating a coherent and easy-to-follow conversation about face-shaving. There are no logical inconsistencies or abrupt topic shifts.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for Interactional Fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pauses:**\n- `[[00:01]]` to `[[00:02]]`: 1-second pause. Normal.\n- `[[00:04]]` to `[[00:04]]`: No pause. Normal.\n- `[[00:15]]` to `[[00:16]]`: 1-second pause. Normal.\n- `[[00:29]]` to `[[00:29]]`: No pause. Normal.\n- `[[00:34]]` to `[[00:36]]`: 2-second pause. This is a brief, natural pause for thought before answering a question and is not disruptive.\n- `[[00:43]]` to `[[00:43]]`: No pause. Normal.\nThere are no long, awkward pauses between turns. The flow is smooth.\n\n**Overlaps:**\n- `[[00:10],[00:11]]`: A is still speaking (\"...wanting to\") when B begins (\"Oh, really?\"). This is a very brief (1-second) overlap where B shows eagerness to engage with A's statement. This is a common and natural feature of conversation, not a disruptive interruption.\n- The other listed overlaps (`[[00:06],[00:07]]`, `[[00:20],[00:21]]`, etc.) are instances where the same speaker is transcribed with overlapping filler words or short phrases within their own main turn. These appear to be transcription artifacts rather than true interactional overlaps between speakers. They represent normal hesitations or self-corrections within a single turn and do not harm the fluency of the interaction between A and B.\n\nThe turn-taking is smooth and natural, with no harmful overlaps or prolonged silences. The interaction flows well.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/71",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: Could you tell me about the different ways ginger is used in East Asian, South Asian, and Middle Eastern cooking and medicine? I'm curious about both its cultural significance and health benefits.\n[[00:12],[00:22]] B: Ginger is widely used across these regions. In East Asia, it flavors dishes and treats colds. South Asia\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Really.\n[[00:17],[00:17]] B: Uh.\n[[00:21],[00:31]] A: That's fascinating! Since ginger has so many health benefits, could you suggest some easy recipes where I can use more ginger in my cooking? I'd love to try new dishes.\n[[00:32],[00:48]] B: Absolutely! A simple ginger tea is great for digestion. For meals, try stir-fries with fresh ginger or ginger chicken soup. Ginger also works well in smoothies and salad dressings for extra flavor and health benefits.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] B: Uh.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] B: I see.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user's first question is a comprehensive query about the uses of ginger in three different regions, covering both culinary and medicinal aspects. Speaker B begins to answer this directly, starting with East Asia. Speaker A then interjects with a follow-up question that narrows the topic to practical recipes, which is a logical and coherent continuation of the conversation. Speaker B's second response directly and effectively answers this new question by providing several concrete examples of recipes. The dialogue is topically coherent, and the responses are consistently relevant to the questions being asked.\n\n\n\nThe interaction flows smoothly without any significant disruptions. The pause between the first and second turns is a natural one second. There is a minor one-second overlap from [00:21] to [00:22] where speaker A begins to speak just as speaker B is finishing their thought. This type of brief overlap is very common in natural conversation and indicates engagement rather than being disruptive. The pause between the third and fourth turns is also a natural one second. The short interjections (\"Yeah, yeah,\" \"Uh,\" \"I see\") within speaker B's turn act as backchannels or fillers and do not impede the flow of communication. There are no extended overlaps or awkwardly long pauses.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/71",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: Are there any trains from London Kings Cross to Cambridge?\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:05],[00:12]] B: Yes there are several trains leaving from London Kings Cross to Cambridge what time would you like to\n[[00:07],[00:08]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:09],[00:10]] B: Right.\n[[00:11],[00:16]] A: Sorry to interrupt, I don't care as long as I arrive by 08:30 on Monday.\n[[00:13],[00:13]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:17],[00:27]] B: Train TR0379 leaves London Kings Cross at 05:17 and arrives in Cambridge at 6:08. Would you like me to book that for you?\n[[00:20],[00:21]] B: Um.\n[[00:22],[00:22]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:29],[00:32]] A: Yes please, Could you book 8 tickets and provide the reference number.\n[[00:30],[00:31]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:33],[00:47]] B: Sure, the train is actually number TR0378 and your reference number is K3KI84VN. The price will be 188.8 GBP payable at the station. Is there anything else today?\n[[00:37],[00:38]] B: Really.\n[[00:39],[00:41]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:42],[00:43]] B: Um.\n[[00:49],[00:55]] A: Yes, I've heard something about a restaurant, I think it's called Wagamama or something like that. Can you help me find it?\n[[00:57],[01:06]] B: That restaurant is found at 36 Saint Andrews Street and serves Japanese food. Do you need their phone number or any other information about the menu?\n[[01:07],[01:12]] A: Actually, can you book a table for 8 people at 13:00 on Monday too?\n[[01:13],[01:19]] B: You're reference number is CFC04U75. Is there anything else I can help you with?\n[[01:21],[01:23]] A: No, that was all. Thanks. Goodbye.\n[[01:24],[01:27]] B: You're welcome, have a nice day.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user and agent's conversation is logically sound and coherent. The user first asks for train information with a specific arrival time constraint. The agent provides a suitable option. The user then requests to book the train and asks for a reference number. The agent successfully books the train, provides the reference number, and gives additional relevant information like the price. When the agent asks if there is anything else, the user transitions smoothly to a new, related task: finding a restaurant in the destination city. The agent finds the restaurant and provides relevant details. The user then asks to book a table, which the agent does, providing a reference number. The conversation concludes naturally. Every response is directly relevant to the preceding turn, making the dialogue efficient and easy to follow.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the conversation flows smoothly. For example, there's only a one-second pause between A finishing their initial request at [00:04] and B starting their response at [00:05]. Similarly, the other turn transitions are quick and natural. There is one extended overlap from [00:11] to [00:12], but the user A acknowledges this by saying \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which is a natural way to interject with clarifying information. This makes the overlap feel like a normal part of a dynamic conversation rather than a flaw. The use of brief backchanneling like \"Mhm\" and \"Yeah, yeah\" further contributes to the natural flow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/71",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hey, Trisha. What do you think of my new haircut?\n[[00:03],[00:04]] B: It looks great! I love it!\n[[00:05],[00:10]] A: Thanks! I was a little nervous about getting it done, but I'm really happy with the\n[[00:07],[00:08]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:09],[00:14]] B: Sorry to interrupt, but where did you get it done? I'm looking for a new place myself.\n[[00:11],[00:11]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:14],[00:21]] A: Oh, I went to that new salon downtown. The stylist was really good. Anyway, I'm really happy with the results.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] A: Right.\n[[00:21],[00:26]] B: It definitely suits you. You look like a completely different person!\n[[00:23],[00:24]] B: Mm.\n[[00:26],[00:34]] A: That's what I was going for! I wanted to try something new and bold. Maybe I'll experiment with different styles more often.\n[[00:28],[00:29]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:30],[00:31]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:34],[00:39]] B: New and fresh, right? Have you thought about trying a different color next time?\n[[00:37],[00:37]] B: Mm.\n[[00:39],[00:42]] A: Well, you definitely succeeded. You look amazing.\n[[00:40],[00:41]] A: I see.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains strong topic coherence and logical consistency throughout. The conversation begins with speaker A asking for an opinion on a new haircut and flows logically as speaker B gives compliments, asks for details about the salon, and discusses the new look with speaker A. Each response is directly related to the previous turn, creating a natural and easy-to-follow interaction. The final line from speaker A, while seemingly out of place, can be interpreted as A responding to the first part of B's previous statement (\"New and fresh, right?\") by agreeing that their goal was achieved (\"Well, you definitely succeeded\"). While it ignores the question about color, this is a common conversational pattern where a speaker latches onto one part of a multi-part utterance. Therefore, response relevance is maintained.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency of the dialogue is excellent. There are no extended, disruptive pauses between turns, allowing the conversation to flow naturally. The one noticeable overlap occurs when B interrupts A at [[00:09]], but it is handled politely (\"Sorry to interrupt\") and is a normal feature of an engaged conversation. Other minor overlaps are single-word backchannels (e.g., \"Right,\" \"Mhm\") that, despite some odd speaker attributions in the transcript, function to show engagement without disrupting the speaker's turn. The turn-taking is smooth and does not feature any harmful extended overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/71",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:08]] A: Could you give me a simple guide on managing remote projects through virtual communication? I need clear steps that are easy to follow for my new remote team.\n[[00:09],[00:19]] B: Sure! First, pick the right tools like Zoom for calls and Trello for tasks. Then set clear goals so everyone knows what to do. Make sure to\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: Mm.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: I see.\n[[00:18],[00:30]] A: That sounds helpful, but could you break down each step more clearly? For example, how often should we communicate and what's the best way to track everyone's progress without being too controlling?\n[[00:31],[00:47]] B: For communication, daily quick updates work well, with weekly detailed meetings. Use project tools where everyone updates their tasks. This keeps things transparent without micromanaging. Always be flexible with time zones and personal schedules too.\n[[00:36],[00:36]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:37],[00:39]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:40],[00:41]] B: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue transcript based on Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\n\n1. **Response Relevance Analysis**:\n * Speaker A starts by asking for a \"simple guide on managing remote projects\" ([00:00]-[00:08]).\n * Speaker B responds directly with the first steps of a guide: \"pick the right tools\" and \"set clear goals\" ([00:09]-[00:19]). This is a perfectly relevant and coherent answer.\n * Speaker A then asks for more specific details, requesting a breakdown of communication frequency and progress tracking methods ([00:18]-[00:30]). This is a logical follow-up question that builds directly on the previous turn.\n * Speaker B provides specific, actionable advice in response: \"daily quick updates,\" \"weekly detailed meetings,\" and using project tools for transparency ([00:31]-[00:47]). This answer directly addresses A's specific questions.\n * Throughout the dialogue, the speakers stay on topic, and each response is a logical and relevant reaction to the previous turn. The conversation progresses smoothly and coherently.\n\n2. **Conclusion for Response Relevance**: The responses are highly relevant, logically consistent, and maintain topic coherence throughout the interaction. The quality is excellent.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the Interactional Fluency, focusing on extended overlaps and long pauses.\n\n1. **Pause Analysis**:\n * The pause between A's first turn ending at [00:08] and B's first turn starting at [00:09] is only one second.\n * The pause between A's second turn ending at [00:30] and B's second turn starting at [00:31] is also one second.\n * These are very short, natural pauses and do not harm the conversational flow. There are no long or awkward pauses.\n\n2. **Overlap Analysis**:\n * There is a minor, one-second overlap where A begins their second turn ([00:18]) just before B finishes their first ([00:19]). This is a common and natural feature of conversation, indicating engagement, and is not an extended or disruptive overlap.\n * The transcript shows several brief utterances from Speaker B (\"Mm\", \"I see\", \"Okay,okay\", \"Really\") that overlap with B's own main sentences. In a natural conversation, these would typically be backchannels from the listener (Speaker A) to show they are engaged. Assuming these are brief, non-disruptive backchannels (even if misattributed in the transcript), they contribute to a natural and fluent interaction. They are not extended overlaps that disrupt the speaker.\n\n3. **Conclusion for Interactional Fluency**: The interaction is fluent. Pauses are minimal and natural. The brief overlaps function as normal turn-taking transitions or backchannels, which are acceptable and common in natural dialogue. There are no harmful extended overlaps or long pauses.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/72",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: So what are you going to do with me?\n[[00:03],[00:06]] B: I'm going to sell you for a high price.\n[[00:04],[00:05]] B: Really.\n[[00:07],[00:12]] A: But why? I'm so beautiful and valua—\n[[00:09],[00:10]] A: Um.\n[[00:11],[00:16]] B: That's exactly why! You see, your beauty and value are what make you such a profitable asset.\n[[00:12],[00:14]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:17],[00:23]] A: But what if someone finds out about me? What if they steal— the information and use it against us?\n[[00:20],[00:21]] A: Right.\n[[00:24],[00:31]] B: Don't worry, no one will find out. I'll make sure you're hidden so well that even if someone did hear about you, they wouldn't know where to look.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] B: I see.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains perfect logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A begins by asking a question about their fate. Speaker B provides a direct answer. Speaker A then questions the reason, to which B responds by explaining the logic. A then raises a potential problem, and B offers a reassuring solution. Each turn is a direct and relevant response to the previous one, creating a cohesive and easy-to-follow narrative.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are a few short pauses between turns (e.g., between 00:01 and 00:03), but these are all brief and natural, serving as normal conversational pacing rather than awkward silence. There is one brief overlap between the main speakers from [00:11] to [00:12] where B begins to respond just before A has completely finished their thought. This type of short, responsive overlap is very common in natural human conversation and does not hinder communication. The other overlaps are cases where a speaker makes a short, parenthetical comment during their own turn (e.g., B saying \"Really.\" or \"That's cool.\"). These do not disrupt the turn-taking flow between the speakers. Overall, the conversation flows smoothly without any harmful interruptions or long delays.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/72",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Hey, Kayleen. How are you doing today?\n[[00:02],[00:05]] B: I'm doing well, thanks for asking. How about you?\n[[00:03],[00:04]] B: Really.\n[[00:05],[00:09]] A: I'm good. Just thinking about you, as usual.\n[[00:07],[00:07]] A: Um.\n[[00:09],[00:13]] B: Aww, that's sweet. I think about you all the time too.\n[[00:10],[00:12]] B: I see.\n[[00:13],[00:15]] A: Yeah? What do you think about?\n[[00:15],[00:22]] B: Oh, just things like what our life will be like in 10 years or 20 years. Whether we'll still be\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: I see.\n[[00:19],[00:19]] B: Really.\n[[00:21],[00:27]] A: Together? I think about that too. But honestly, I can't imagine it any other way.\n[[00:23],[00:25]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:27],[00:37]] B: Exactly! I can't imagine my life without you by my side. Plus, we've talked about getting married and having kids someday, so there's no way I'm leaving you anytime soon!\n[[00:30],[00:31]] B: Um.\n[[00:32],[00:32]] B: Right.\n[[00:38],[00:49]] A: I know, but sometimes I can't help but wonder what the future holds. It's scary thinking about all the possibilities, you know? Like what if things change, or if we face something unexpected?\n[[00:42],[00:43]] A: Cool.\n[[00:50],[00:59]] B: I get that. But remember, we don't have to figure it all out right now. We're just enjoying life as it is and taking things one day at a time.\n[[00:53],[00:53]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:59],[01:06]] A: You're right. I'm just grateful to be with you right now. No matter what the future holds, I know we'll face it together.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains a consistent and logical flow. It begins with a simple greeting and progresses naturally into a deeper, more intimate conversation about the couple's future. Speaker A initiates a topic, Speaker B responds and elaborates, Speaker A introduces a counterpoint (worry), and Speaker B provides reassurance, leading to a satisfying conclusion. Each turn is directly relevant to the one preceding it, and the topic development is coherent and believable for a conversation between two people in a relationship.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between turns; the transitions are either immediate or separated by a brief, natural one-second pause. There is one minor overlap from [[00:21] to [00:22]] where Speaker A chimes in to complete Speaker B's sentence (\"...still be [A: Together?]\"). This is a cooperative overlap that demonstrates engagement and is a common feature of natural, fluent conversation. The numerous short, self-overlapping utterances (e.g., \"Really,\" \"I see,\" \"Um\") are typical filler words or backchannels and do not disrupt the turn-taking flow between the two main speakers.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/72",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: I am looking for a cheap restaurant in the centre.\n[[00:03],[00:13]] B: I have found many possibilities. Golden house is chinese and the river bar steakhouse and grill serves modern european. Are either of those of interest for\n[[00:06],[00:07]] B: Uh.\n[[00:08],[00:08]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:12],[00:18]] A: Yes, may I have the address, postcode, and phone number for Golden House? I'll book it myself.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:18],[00:30]] B: They are located at 12 Lensfield Road City Centre, postcode cb21eg, and phone number 01842753771.\n[[00:22],[00:22]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:23],[00:24]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] B: Really.\n[[00:30],[00:33]] A: Thanks, that's all I need. Have a nice day.\n[[00:33],[00:36]] B: Thank you for using our service. Have a great day.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A begins by clearly stating their need for a \"cheap restaurant in the centre.\" Speaker B responds directly by offering two restaurant options, specifying their cuisine types. Speaker A then makes a clear choice (\"Golden House\") and requests specific information (address, postcode, phone number). Speaker B provides exactly the information requested. The conversation concludes logically with both speakers exchanging polite farewells. The entire exchange is coherent, on-topic, and follows a logical progression from request to fulfillment.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the transition from one speaker to the next is smooth and immediate. For instance, there is no delay between A's request for details at [00:18] and B's response which also starts at [00:18]. There is a minor, one-second overlap between [00:12] and [00:13] where A begins to answer before B has fully finished their question. This type of brief overlap is very natural in human conversation and indicates active listening, rather than being a flaw. There are no extended or disruptive overlaps that would impede communication.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/72",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: I really enjoyed the poetic description of nature in that passage. Could you explain how the imagery of the Great Ocean Road as a \"sinewy snake\" enhances our understanding of its beauty?\n[[00:13],[00:21]] B: The \"sinewy snake\" image makes the road feel alive and graceful. It suggests winding curves that\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:20],[00:32]] A: That makes sense! Since you mentioned coastal views and rainforests earlier, could you recommend specific spots along the Great Ocean Road where I might experience both landscapes in one trip?\n[[00:33],[00:59]] B: Absolutely! The Twelve Apostles area offers dramatic coastal cliffs, while nearby Otway National Park has lush rainforests with waterfalls. You could start at Loch Ard Gorge for ocean views, then drive inland to Maits Rest for a short rainforest walk. Both spots are close together and showcase Victoria's diverse natural beauty.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] B: Uh.\n[[00:43],[00:43]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:44],[00:45]] B: Uh huh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B directly answers Speaker A's initial question about the \"sinewy snake\" imagery, providing a clear and logical explanation. Speaker A then acknowledges this response (\"That makes sense!\") and asks a topically related follow-up question about specific locations. Speaker B's final response is again directly relevant, offering concrete examples (Twelve Apostles, Otway National Park) that perfectly address A's request for combined coastal and rainforest experiences. The entire conversation is coherent and stays consistently on the topic of the Great Ocean Road.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no prolonged, disruptive pauses between turns. The 2-second pause between [00:11] and [00:13] is a natural gap for B to process the question. There is a brief, one-second overlap where A begins speaking at [00:20] just before B finishes at [00:21]. This type of brief, enthusiastic overlap is common in natural conversation and does not hinder communication. The filler words used by B (\"Ummm,\" \"Uh,\" \"Mhm\") are used within their own speaking turns while formulating thoughts and do not disrupt the overall flow. The conversation feels smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/73",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hi Erin! I was wondering if you could do me a favor.\n[[00:02],[00:04]] B: Sure, what do you\n[[00:03],[00:11]] A: I need you to fetch my ball from under the couch. It's been bothering me all day and I can't seem to reach it no matter how hard I try.\n[[00:06],[00:06]] A: Really.\n[[00:08],[00:08]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:12],[00:20]] B: Oh, I can totally help with that! But before I do, do you know how it got stuck under there? I mean, is there something else we should be careful of?\n[[00:14],[00:16]] B: Sure.\n[[00:17],[00:17]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:21],[00:30]] A: I'm not really sure how it happened, but it keeps rolling under there every time I play with it. Maybe we can find a way to stop that from happening again?\n[[00:23],[00:24]] A: Um.\n[[00:26],[00:27]] A: Sure.\n[[00:31],[00:35]] B: Good idea! Let's see if we can block that spot after I grab the ball.\n[[00:32],[00:33]] B: Mm.\n[[00:36],[00:38]] A: Thanks, I really appreciate it.\n[[00:39],[00:41]] B: You're welcome, Calee.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance of the responses in the dialogue.\n\n1. A opens with a request for a favor.\n2. B immediately agrees (\"Sure, what do you...\").\n3. A explains the favor (get a ball from under the couch). This is a direct and relevant continuation.\n4. B not only agrees to help but asks a clarifying question about the situation (\"how it got stuck under there?\"), showing engagement and looking ahead to potential other issues. This is a highly relevant and thoughtful response.\n5. A answers B's question and logically progresses the conversation by suggesting a long-term solution (\"Maybe we can find a way to stop that from happening again?\").\n6. B agrees with the suggestion (\"Good idea! Let's see if we can block that spot...\"), directly addressing A's new proposal.\n7. The dialogue concludes with a standard and appropriate exchange of thanks and \"you're welcome.\"\n\nAll turns are logically connected and on-topic. The conversation flows coherently from a simple request to a collaborative problem-solving effort. The relevance is excellent.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pauses:**\n* A ends at [00:02], B starts at [00:02]. No pause.\n* A's main turn ends at [00:11], B starts at [00:12]. A 1-second gap, which is a natural pause.\n* B ends at [00:20], A starts at [00:21]. A 1-second gap, also natural.\n* A ends at [00:30], B starts at [00:31]. A 1-second gap, also natural.\n* B ends at [00:35], A starts at [00:36]. A 1-second gap, also natural.\n* A ends at [00:38], B starts at [00:39]. A 1-second gap, also natural.\nThere are no long or awkward pauses in the conversation.\n\n**Overlaps:**\n* There is a significant overlap at the beginning. B starts talking at [00:02] (\"Sure, what do you\"), but A starts talking at [00:03] and continues until [00:11], talking over B. However, this type of overlap, where the person making a request eagerly continues their thought, is very common and natural in human conversation. B yields the floor, lets A finish, and then responds appropriately. It doesn't disrupt the flow of the interaction. The other overlaps noted in the transcript (e.g., [[00:14],[00:16]] B: Sure.) are backchannels or fillers within a speaker's own turn and are not problematic interactional overlaps.\n\nThe conversation flows smoothly and naturally, with no harmful interruptions or silences.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/73",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:09]] A: Could you help me draft a nice message for my neighbor who just graduated? I want it to sound warm and encouraging since they worked really hard for this big achievement.\n[[00:10],[00:15]] B: Of course! How about this: \"Hi [Neighbor's Name], I just wanted\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: Mm.\n[[00:14],[00:21]] A: Wait, before you finish, could you make sure it sounds personal but not too formal? I don’t want it to sound like a generic card message.\n[[00:22],[00:29]] B: Got it! Let me adjust that. \"Hey [Neighbor's Name], I’m so proud of you for graduating! Seeing how much effort you\n[[00:24],[00:25]] B: Really.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:28],[00:34]] A: That’s much better! Since they’re starting their career soon, do you have any advice I could add to keep them motivated?\n[[00:35],[00:45]] B: Definitely! How about: \"As you start this new adventure, remember—stay curious, lean on good people, and don’t shy away\n[[00:38],[00:38]] B: Sure.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] B: I see.\n[[00:44],[00:51]] A: That’s perfect! One last thing—should I mention how impressed I am with their dedication over the years, or is that too much?\n[[00:52],[01:00]] B: Not at all! It’s really thoughtful. Try: \"I’ve always admired your dedication, and this is just the beginning. Big things are coming your way!\"\n[[00:54],[00:55]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:56],[00:56]] B: Mm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants help drafting a message for their neighbor's graduation. The assistant (B) starts drafting a message. The user (A) interrupts with a clarification to make it more personal. The assistant immediately understands and adjusts the tone. The user then asks for an additional element (motivational advice), which the assistant provides. Finally, the user asks if adding a personal comment about dedication is appropriate, and the assistant confirms it is and provides a suggestion. Throughout the dialogue, the assistant's responses are directly relevant, logically consistent, and build upon the user's requests. The topic coherence is perfect.\n\n\n\nThe interaction is very smooth and natural. There are several brief overlaps, but they function as natural interruptions and clarifications, not as disruptive talk-overs. For example, A interrupts B at [[00:14]] to refine the request, and B cedes the floor. This is typical of a collaborative conversation. The pauses between turns are consistently short (1 second), indicating a fluid and responsive exchange. There are no prolonged, awkward silences. The assistant also uses appropriate backchannels (\"Mm.\", \"Uh huh.\", \"I see.\") which contribute to the conversational feel without interrupting the flow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/73",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Hey, what's up?\n[[00:01],[00:04]] B: Not much. Just getting ready for my shift. You?\n[[00:02],[00:03]] B: Uh.\n[[00:05],[00:10]] A: Oh, I'm just about to clock in. I'm still getting used to this whole coffee shop\n[[00:07],[00:08]] A: I see.\n[[00:09],[00:15]] B: Sorry to jump in, but do you have any tips for handling the espresso machine? I've heard it's tricky.\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: Um.\n[[00:15],[00:31]] A: Yeah, it can be a bit challenging at first. I've been working here for a few months now and I like it. The people are cool and it's a pretty relaxed atmosphere. The espresso machine just takes some practice. One thing I found helpful was watching some tutorial videos online.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:22],[00:22]] A: Um.\n[[00:23],[00:23]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:32],[00:40]] B: That's good to hear. I was a little worried that it would be really intense and fast-paced or something. But back to the espresso machine, any specific tricks you recommend?\n[[00:34],[00:36]] B: Right.\n[[00:37],[00:37]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:41],[00:53]] A: Nah, it's not like that at all. Just make sure you keep up with the orders and don't get too behind and you'll be fine. And about the espresso machine, just make sure to tamp the grounds evenly and keep an eye on the pressure gauge.\n[[00:44],[00:45]] A: Right.\n[[00:46],[00:47]] A: Cool.\n[[00:53],[00:56]] B: Alright, thanks for the advice. I'll try my best to keep up.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and logical consistency of the dialogue.\n- The conversation starts with a standard greeting: \"Hey, what's up?\".\n- B responds appropriately and asks A a reciprocal question: \"Not much... You?\".\n- A answers B's question and provides more context about starting a new job at a coffee shop.\n- B picks up on this context and asks a very relevant question about a specific piece of equipment, the espresso machine.\n- A answers the question, slightly tangents to the general work atmosphere, but then brings it back to the espresso machine with a tip. This is a natural way people converse.\n- B acknowledges the information about the atmosphere and then politely steers the conversation back to the espresso machine for more specific advice.\n- A provides the specific advice requested.\n- B thanks A for the advice, concluding the topic.\nThe entire conversation is logically consistent and coherent. The speakers build upon each other's contributions effectively. There are no irrelevant turns or logical fallacies.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n- **Pauses:**\n- Between [[00:01]] and [[00:01]]: No pause between A and B.\n- Between [[00:04]] and [[00:05]]: There is a 1-second pause between B's turn and A's turn. This is a normal and natural gap in conversation.\n- Between [[00:15]] and [[00:15]]: No pause between B and A.\n- Between [[00:31]] and [[00:32]]: There is a 1-second pause. This is also a natural turn-taking gap.\n- Between [[00:40]] and [[00:41]]: A 1-second pause, which is perfectly acceptable.\n- There are no prolonged or awkward pauses that disrupt the flow.\n\n- **Overlaps:**\n- [[00:05],[00:10]] A overlaps with [[00:09],[00:15]] B. The overlap lasts for 1 second (from 00:09 to 00:10). Speaker B even acknowledges this by saying \"Sorry to jump in,\" which makes the interaction feel very natural rather than disruptive.\n- Other short utterances like \"Uh,\" \"I see,\" \"Right,\" and \"Cool\" are present. Some of these overlap with a speaker's own main turn (e.g., [[00:07],[00:08]] A occurs during [[00:05],[00:10]] A). These are either transcription artifacts or brief, naturalistic fillers/backchannels that do not harm the conversational flow. They are not extended, competitive overlaps.\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth, with no disruptive pauses or overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/74",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:08]] A: I'm studying for a test on the Civil War. I've been reviewing my notes on the major battles, leaders, and events of the war. I feel confident that I'll do well on the test.\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:04],[00:05]] A: Cool.\n[[00:08],[00:13]] B: That's great! I'm sure you'll do fine. Do you have any favorite parts of the Civil War?\n[[00:10],[00:11]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:13],[00:22]] A: Well, I think the Battle of Gettysburg was pretty fascinating. It was a turning point in the war, and it was led by some incredible\n[[00:16],[00:18]] A: Really.\n[[00:21],[00:29]] B: Sorry to interrupt, but I just remembered something—wasn't the Battle of Gettysburg also significant because of the high number of casualties?\n[[00:23],[00:24]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] B: Uh.\n[[00:29],[00:39]] A: Yes, it was one of the bloodiest battles. And it was led by some incredible generals. Speaking of generals, didn't Abraham Lincoln give one of his most famous speeches there?\n[[00:32],[00:33]] A: Uh.\n[[00:34],[00:35]] A: Really.\n[[00:40],[00:51]] B: Yes, that's true! The Battle of Gettysburg was definitely a key moment in the war. And speaking of generals, didn't Abraham Lincoln deliver the Gettysburg Address there?\n[[00:43],[00:45]] B: Uh.\n[[00:46],[00:47]] B: Mm.\n[[00:52],[01:02]] A: Oh, I was about to mention that! The speech is known as the \"Gettysburg Address.\" In it, he talked about how the war was a fight for democracy and equality. It's really inspiring.\n[[01:02],[01:06]] B: It sounds like you've done your homework! I'm sure you'll do great on your test.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue based on two criteria: Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\n\n**1. Response Relevance Analysis:**\n- The conversation starts with Speaker A talking about studying for a Civil War test.\n- Speaker B responds appropriately with encouragement and asks a relevant follow-up question about A's favorite parts of the war.\n- Speaker A answers by mentioning the Battle of Gettysburg.\n- Speaker B interrupts, but the interruption is highly relevant, adding a detail about the Battle of Gettysburg (casualties).\n- Speaker A acknowledges B's point and continues the topic, transitioning to Abraham Lincoln's speech at Gettysburg.\n- Speaker B confirms A's point, slightly rephrasing the question about the speech (Gettysburg Address). While a little redundant, it is still perfectly on topic and moves the conversation forward.\n- Speaker A then elaborates on the Gettysburg Address.\n- Speaker B concludes the conversation by tying it back to the beginning, encouraging A about the test.\n- Every turn is logically connected to the previous one, and the topic of the Civil War (specifically Gettysburg) is maintained coherently throughout. There are no logical inconsistencies or off-topic remarks. The relevance is excellent.\n\n**2. Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\n- **Pauses:** I will check the timestamps for long pauses between turns.\n - A ends at 00:08, B starts at 00:08 (No pause).\n - B ends at 00:13, A starts at 00:13 (No pause).\n - A's turn is interrupted by B at 00:21.\n - B ends at 00:29, A starts at 00:29 (No pause).\n - A ends at 00:39, B starts at 00:40 (1-second pause). This is a normal, slight pause in conversation.\n - B ends at 00:51, A starts at 00:52 (1-second pause). Also a normal pause.\n - A ends at 01:02, B starts at 01:02 (No pause).\n - There are no prolonged or awkward pauses. The conversation flows smoothly.\n- **Overlaps:** I will check the timestamps for extended overlaps.\n - The short utterances like `[[00:02],[00:03]] A: That's cool.` or `[[00:10],[00:11]] B: That's cool.` are brief, self-overlapping fillers or backchannels. They do not disrupt the flow of the main utterances.\n - The main overlap occurs from `[[00:21],[00:22]]`. Speaker A is talking (`...incredible`) when Speaker B begins to speak (`Sorry to interrupt...`). This is a one-second overlap. Crucially, Speaker B acknowledges the interruption politely, and the interruption itself is highly relevant. This kind of collaborative overlap is common in natural, engaged conversation and is not considered harmful here. It doesn't derail the dialogue.\n- Overall, the interactional fluency is high. The turn-taking is smooth and natural, with no disruptive pauses or overlaps.\n\n**Conclusion:**\nBoth Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency are excellent. The dialogue is coherent, logical, and flows like a natural conversation. This merits the highest score.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency of the dialogue is excellent. There are no long or awkward pauses between speaker turns. The transition from one speaker to the next is smooth and immediate in most cases, with the longest gap being a perfectly natural one second. There is one distinct overlap where speaker B interrupts speaker A from [00:21] to [00:22]. However, this interruption is handled politely (\"Sorry to interrupt...\") and is topically relevant, which makes it feel like a natural feature of an engaged conversation rather than a flaw. The other short, overlapping utterances are minor fillers that don't impede the interactional flow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/74",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: So, how do you feel about your progress so far?\n[[00:02],[00:07]] B: I feel pretty good, actually. I've been working hard and I think it's\n[[00:05],[00:05]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:06],[00:16]] A: Sorry to jump in, but when you say \"working hard,\" do you feel like you're managing your time effectively, or is there something specific you've been focusing on?\n[[00:09],[00:10]] A: Um.\n[[00:11],[00:11]] A: I see.\n[[00:16],[00:21]] B: I've been managing my time better, definitely. But I was going to say that I think it's paying off.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Sure.\n[[00:21],[00:27]] A: That's great to hear! I'm really proud of you. What do you think has been the key to your success?\n[[00:23],[00:24]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:27],[00:38]] B: Well, I guess just setting my mind to it and not giving up. It's easy to get discouraged, but if you keep going then eventually things will start to fall into place, and you begin to see progress.\n[[00:33],[00:34]] B: Mm.\n[[00:39],[00:48]] A: Start to change, right? I completely agree. Do you think there's anything specific that helped you push through those moments of discouragement?\n[[00:42],[00:43]] A: Right.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:48],[00:56]] B: Actually, yes. I found that breaking tasks down into smaller steps made them more manageable, which helped me stay motivated.\n[[00:51],[00:53]] B: Cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue based on two criteria: Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n- The dialogue starts with a clear question from speaker A about progress [[00:00],[00:02]].\n- Speaker B gives a direct and relevant answer, starting to explain their feelings [[00:02],[00:07]].\n- Speaker A interrupts at [[00:06],[00:16]] to ask for a specific clarification on \"working hard\". While an interruption, the question is directly related to B's previous statement, maintaining topic coherence.\n- Speaker B addresses A's clarifying question and then seamlessly finishes their original thought [[00:16],[00:21]], demonstrating logical consistency.\n- The conversation continues to build upon itself. A asks about the \"key to success\" [[00:21],[00:27]], which is a logical follow-up to B's statement that their hard work is \"paying off\".\n- B's answer [[00:27],[00:38]] is relevant, and A's subsequent question [[00:39],[00:48]] drills down for more specifics, showing active listening and maintaining a coherent topic thread.\n- B's final response [[00:48],[00:56]] provides a specific strategy, directly answering A's question.\n\nOverall, the responses are consistently relevant, logically connected, and maintain perfect topic coherence throughout the interaction.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to analyze the interactional fluency, specifically looking for extended overlaps and long pauses.\n\n**Pause Analysis:**\n- [[00:02]] A ends, [[00:02]] B starts (No pause).\n- [[00:16]] A ends, [[00:16]] B starts (No pause).\n- [[00:21]] B ends, [[00:21]] A starts (No pause).\n- [[00:27]] A ends, [[00:27]] B starts (No pause).\n- [[00:38]] B ends, [[00:39]] A starts (1-second pause). This is a natural, brief pause between turns.\n- [[00:48]] A ends, [[00:48]] B starts (No pause).\nThere are no long or awkward pauses in the dialogue. The turn-taking is smooth and timely.\n\n**Overlap Analysis:**\n- The most significant overlap occurs when speaker A interrupts speaker B from [[00:06]] to [[00:07]]. This is a 1-second overlap. However, speaker A acknowledges the interruption by saying \"Sorry to jump in,\" which mitigates the disruption and makes it a natural, albeit assertive, part of the conversation. It is not an extended, disruptive overlap.\n- The other instances of overlapping speech (e.g., [[00:05],[00:05]], [[00:18],[00:19]], [[00:33],[00:34]]) are backchannels or fillers from a speaker during their own turn. These are not instances of two speakers talking over each other and do not harm the interactional fluency.\n\nThe interaction flows very well with no harmful pauses or overlaps. The single interruption is handled appropriately within the dialogue.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/74",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:15]] A: That's fascinating! Could you explain more about how Jackson Pollock's painting techniques specifically mirrored jazz improvisation? I'm really curious about the similarities between his artistic process and jazz music.\n[[00:16],[00:21]] B: Pollock's drip paintings worked like jazz solos. He moved freely around the canvas,\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Mm.\n[[00:20],[00:32]] A: That makes so much sense! Since we're talking about this connection, could you tell me about other modern artists besides Pollock who were influenced by jazz music in their work? I'd love to learn more examples.\n[[00:33],[00:57]] B: Several important artists drew inspiration from jazz. Willem de Kooning created energetic brushstrokes that mirrored jazz's intensity. Romare Bearden made collages with jazz-like rhythms and urban scenes. Stuart Davis painted bold geometric compositions that reflected jazz's syncopated beats. These artists all translated musical elements into visual forms.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Um.\n[[00:45],[00:46]] B: Um.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user's responses are consistently relevant and logical throughout the interaction. The conversation starts with a specific question about Jackson Pollock and jazz, which user B answers directly. User A then logically expands the topic by asking for other examples of artists influenced by jazz. User B provides a detailed and relevant answer, naming several artists and explaining the connection. The dialogue maintains a coherent and focused topic, with each turn building logically on the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, disruptive pauses between turns. The gap between A's first question and B's answer is only one second, which is a natural transition time. Similarly, the pause between A's second question and B's answer is also a brief, natural one second. The brief overlap where B says \"Mm\" while A is speaking is a natural backchannel that signals active listening and does not disrupt the flow. The fillers (\"Okay, okay,\" \"Um\") within B's longer turn are natural for someone gathering their thoughts to provide a comprehensive answer and do not create an awkward silence or disrupt the conversation's rhythm.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/74",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:07]] A: What is the fastest recorded speed of a cheetah, and how does this compare to other fast animals like greyhounds or pronghorns?\n[[00:08],[00:18]] B: Cheetahs can reach speeds up to 70 miles per hour, making them the fastest land animal. Greyhounds run about 45 miles\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Um.\n[[00:17],[00:25]] A: Since cheetahs are so incredibly fast, is their speed the main reason they're successful at hunting prey compared to other big cats?\n[[00:25],[00:41]] B: Yes, their speed is crucial for hunting. Unlike lions that ambush prey, cheetahs rely on short bursts of speed to chase down fast animals like gazelles. Their flexible spine and long tail help them make quick turns while running.\n[[00:30],[00:31]] B: I see.\n[[00:32],[00:34]] B: Cool.\n[[00:35],[00:35]] B: Yeah, yeah.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B directly answers Speaker A's initial question about the cheetah's speed and provides a relevant comparison to a greyhound. Speaker A's follow-up question logically builds on the previous topic, inquiring about the role of speed in hunting success. Speaker B's response is again highly relevant, explaining how the cheetah uses its speed and contrasting its hunting style with that of other big cats, directly addressing the question. The entire conversation is coherent and stays on topic.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no prolonged pauses between turns that would disrupt the conversational flow. The first turn transition has a normal, one-second pause. The transition from B to A involves a very brief, one-second overlap ([00:17]-[00:18]), which is common in natural, enthusiastic conversation and does not hinder communication. The final turn transition is seamless, with no pause at all. There are no harmful extended overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/74",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hello, I am looking for a restaurant called Meze Bar.\n[[00:03],[00:05]] B: Sure, what would you like to know about it?\n[[00:05],[00:11]] A: Well, I was interested in booking a table for Thursday. Could you help me with\n[[00:08],[00:09]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:10],[00:14]] B: Absolutely! Before we proceed, do you have any specific time in mind for the reservation?\n[[00:11],[00:13]] B: Really.\n[[00:16],[00:20]] A: There will be 6 of us and we would like to eat at 18:30 if possible.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] A: Cool.\n[[00:21],[00:25]] B: Today at 18:30 for 6 at Meze. Is that correct?\n[[00:23],[00:23]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:26],[00:28]] A: Yes, on Thursday.\n[[00:29],[00:41]] B: Booking was successful. The table will be reserved for 15 minutes. Your reference number is FVVICA5M. Will that be enough time for you to arrive at the restaurant on time?\n[[00:36],[00:36]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:42],[00:47]] A: Sorry, I also need to book train tickets. Could you assist with that as well?\n[[00:44],[00:45]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:48],[00:51]] B: Of course! Where is your destination?\n[[00:52],[00:53]] A: I would like to go to Cambridge.\n[[00:54],[00:56]] B: Where will you be departing from?",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation flows logically from one topic to the next. It begins with a request to find a restaurant, which transitions into a booking request. Speaker B asks relevant clarifying questions about time and party size. Although B makes a small error by saying \"Today\" instead of \"Thursday\" at [00:21], speaker A promptly and appropriately corrects this at [00:26], and the conversation continues coherently. The topic then shifts to booking a train, which is a logical next step in planning an outing. Speaker B handles this shift smoothly by asking for the destination and departure point. All responses are directly relevant to the preceding turn and contribute to achieving the user's goals.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long or disruptive pauses between turns; the gaps are consistently short and natural (around 1-2 seconds). There is a brief, one-second overlap between [00:10] and [00:11] where speaker B begins to respond just before speaker A has fully finished their sentence. This kind of minor overlap is very common in natural human conversation and does not hinder understanding or flow. There are no instances of extended overlaps where both speakers talk over each other for a prolonged period. The turn-taking is smooth and efficient throughout the dialogue.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/75",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:06]] A: Hey, do you want to come to the park with me today? I've been wanting to spend more time with you and this seems like the perfect opportunity.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Mm.\n[[00:03],[00:04]] A: Sure.\n[[00:07],[00:10]] B: Of course! I would love to.\n[[00:08],[00:08]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:10],[00:14]] A: Awesome! Let's go pack a lunch and grab a blanket. We can have a picnic!\n[[00:11],[00:13]] A: Mm.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Sounds great!\n[[00:15],[00:19]] A: This looks so good! What did you make?\n[[00:17],[00:17]] A: Sure.\n[[00:19],[00:25]] B: I made us both sandwiches with turkey, cheese, and avocado. And I packed some grapes and\n[[00:21],[00:21]] B: Uh.\n[[00:22],[00:23]] B: Really.\n[[00:24],[00:28]] A: Sorry to interrupt, but did you remember to bring any drinks?\n[[00:26],[00:26]] A: Right.\n[[00:28],[00:34]] B: Oh, I almost forgot! I'll grab some water bottles. And I packed some grapes and carrots too.\n[[00:30],[00:32]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:34],[00:39]] A: Yum, I love all of those things! Thank you so much for doing this.\n[[00:37],[00:37]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:39],[00:46]] B: Of course! I wanted to spend some quality time with my best friend. So tell me, how have things been going with your new job?\n[[00:47],[00:51]] A: Actually, I've been meaning to talk to you about something important.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in this dialogue are highly relevant and coherent. The conversation flows logically from one topic to the next. It begins with an invitation to the park (A: [[00:00],[00:06]]), which is accepted (B: [[00:07],[00:10]]). The suggestion of a picnic follows naturally (A: [[00:10],[00:14]]), and the conversation then moves to the details of the food (A: [[00:15],[00:19]], B: [[00:19],[00:25]]). Speaker A's interruption to ask about drinks (A: [[00:24],[00:28]]) is perfectly relevant to the context of packing for a picnic. The conversation then transitions smoothly from the picnic details to a more personal topic about A's new job (B: [[00:39],[00:46]]), which is a very natural shift in a friendly chat. Each turn is a direct and logical continuation of the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long or awkward pauses between turns, indicating a smooth and natural conversational rhythm. For example, Speaker B responds to A's invitation after only a one-second pause ([[00:06]] -> [[00:07]]), and most subsequent turns have no pause at all. There is one instance of an overlap between speakers A and B from [00:24] to [00:25], but this is not a fluency issue. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges it (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), making it a deliberate and socially appropriate interruption rather than a technical flaw. The many instances of a speaker overlapping with themselves (e.g., A at [[00:00],[00:06]] and [[00:01],[00:02]]) appear to be transcription artifacts of backchannels or filler words and do not disrupt the flow of the interaction between the two main speakers.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/75",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:08]] A: Could you explain why \"Stairway to Heaven\" is considered one of the greatest rock songs ever? I'd love to hear what makes it so special compared to other classic rock tracks.\n[[00:09],[00:22]] B: Well, there are three key things that make it stand out. First, that legendary guitar solo is pure magic and shows Jimmy Page's incredible talent.\n[[00:13],[00:13]] B: Right.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Sure.\n[[00:21],[00:31]] A: Wait, before you get to the third point, could you elaborate more on how the song builds up? I'm curious about the specific musical techniques they used to create that effect.\n[[00:31],[00:41]] B: Absolutely! It starts super mellow with just acoustic guitar and flute, almost like a folk song. Then layer by layer, they\n[[00:34],[00:35]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] B: I see.\n[[00:41],[00:49]] A: That makes sense about the structure, but what about the lyrics? How do they contribute to the song's lasting appeal and mystical reputation?\n[[00:50],[01:01]] B: The lyrics are wonderfully vague yet poetic, leaving room for interpretation. They mix medieval imagery with spiritual themes, creating\n[[00:53],[00:54]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:55],[00:56]] B: That's cool.\n[[01:00],[01:10]] A: Speaking of Robert Plant, how does his vocal performance compare to other rock singers of that era? What makes his voice so perfect for this song specifically?\n[[01:10],[01:27]] B: His voice starts soft and vulnerable in the beginning, then grows stronger with the music. That emotional range matches the song's journey perfectly. Unlike many rock screamers, he shows incredible control while still packing serious power when needed.\n[[01:16],[01:18]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[01:19],[01:19]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[01:21],[01:21]] B: Sure.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates the conversation with a clear and specific question about why \"Stairway to Heaven\" is considered a great song. Speaker B responds directly, starting to list key reasons. Speaker A's subsequent questions are logical follow-ups, asking for elaboration on the song's structure, lyrics, and vocals. Each of B's responses directly addresses A's specific questions, providing relevant details. The conversation flows coherently, exploring different facets of the main topic without any digressions or logical breaks.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no prolonged pauses between turns; the transitions are smooth and natural, often with less than a one-second gap, indicating attentive listening and quick responses. There are a few instances of brief overlap, such as at [00:21] and [01:00], where speaker A begins talking just before speaker B finishes. These are natural interjections used to guide the conversation (e.g., \"Wait, before you get to the third point...\") and last only a second. They are not disruptive and contribute to the conversational feel. The other listed overlaps (e.g., [00:13], [00:14]) are all self-interjections from speaker B within their own turn, not overlaps between the two speakers, and do not harm the interactional flow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/75",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: Could you explain how machine learning helps analyze feelings in social media posts? I'm particularly interested in understanding how it classifies tweets as positive or negative.\n[[00:11],[00:21]] B: Machine learning can scan tweets and spot words linked to emotions. For example, words like \"happy\" or \"great\" suggest positive feelings, while \"angry\"\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Right.\n[[00:20],[00:31]] A: I'd like to know more about how natural language processing improves sentiment analysis. Could you describe the technical process in simple terms that are easy to understand?\n[[00:32],[00:51]] B: Natural language processing helps computers understand human language better. It looks at word meanings, sentence structure, and even emojis to gauge emotions more accurately. For instance, it can tell if \"sick\" means ill or cool based on context. This makes sentiment analysis much more precise.\n[[00:38],[00:39]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] B: Ummm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A initiates the conversation with a clear, specific question about using machine learning for sentiment analysis on tweets. Speaker B provides a direct and relevant answer, explaining the concept using simple examples (\"happy\" vs. \"angry\"). Speaker A's follow-up question logically builds on the topic, asking for more detail on the role of Natural Language Processing (NLP). Speaker B's second response is again highly relevant, explaining how NLP analyzes context and providing a clear example (\"sick\" meaning ill or cool) to simplify a technical process, just as requested. The conversation remains coherent and focused, with each response logically addressing the preceding query.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, disruptive pauses between turns; the gap between speaker A's second turn and speaker B's response is only one second, which is natural. The dialogue features a minor, one-second overlap where speaker A begins speaking just as speaker B is finishing their turn, which is common and non-disruptive in natural conversation. The other \"overlaps\" noted in the transcript (e.g., \"Uh huh,\" \"Mm hmm\") are very short backchannels or hesitations. These do not disrupt the flow but rather indicate active listening or natural thought processes, contributing to a smooth and natural conversational rhythm. There are no harmful extended overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/76",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:05]] A: I'm so ready for a vacation. I feel like we never take enough time off\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Really.\n[[00:04],[00:09]] B: I definitely agree with you. I'm about to take two weeks off for spring break!\n[[00:06],[00:07]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:10],[00:15]] A: That's awesome. I want to go to the beach, so do you want to go to the same place?\n[[00:13],[00:14]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:16],[00:22]] B: I'd love to - how long will it take you to get ready to pack everything you need for the trip?\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Um.\n[[00:24],[00:27]] A: Wait, before I answer that, have you already booked your tickets for spring break?\n[[00:25],[00:26]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:29],[00:36]] B: Not yet, but I'm planning to do it soon. Anyway, I have to make sure my roommate is home before I leave. So I'd say it'll take an hour.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Uh.\n[[00:33],[00:33]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:38],[00:42]] A: I can wait an hour. I think you're ready by then. Where do you want to go?\n[[00:40],[00:41]] A: Sure.\n[[00:43],[00:51]] B: Oh, I don't know! I want to go somewhere near a beach - like Florida or the Bahamas. Where do you want to go?\n[[00:46],[00:48]] B: Um.\n[[00:52],[00:54]] A: I'd love to go to Hawaii.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the provided dialogue transcript for response relevance and interactional fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\nThe conversation follows a clear and logical path.\n1. Speaker A introduces the topic of wanting a vacation.\n2. Speaker B agrees and mentions their own upcoming vacation time.\n3. Speaker A proposes they go together to the beach.\n4. Speaker B agrees and asks a logistical question about packing time.\n5. Speaker A pivots to a clarifying question about B's travel bookings.\n6. Speaker B answers the booking question and then, somewhat confusingly, answers the packing question for themselves (\"it'll take an hour\") even though it was directed at A. However, A adapts to this and continues the conversation based on that one-hour timeframe.\n7. The dialogue then logically progresses to discussing potential destinations (Florida, Bahamas, Hawaii).\n\nDespite the minor misunderstanding at `[00:29]`, the conversation remains coherent and on-topic. The responses are consistently relevant to the theme of planning a vacation.\n\n\n\n**Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\nI will check for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n* **Pauses:** The pauses between speaker turns are consistently short, typically 1-2 seconds (e.g., `[00:02]-[00:04]`, `[00:09]-[00:10]`, `[00:22]-[00:24]`). These pauses are natural and do not disrupt the flow of the conversation. There are no prolonged or awkward silences.\n\n* **Overlaps:** The overlaps are brief and typical of natural conversation.\n * `[00:04]-[00:05]`: A 1-second overlap where B starts talking just before A finishes. This is a common and acceptable feature of turn-taking.\n * The other annotations listed as potential overlaps (`[00:06],[00:07] B: Mhm`, `[00:13],[00:14] A: Ummm`, etc.) are backchannels or filled pauses within a single speaker's turn. These are not harmful overlaps; they contribute to the naturalness of the dialogue.\n\nThe interaction is smooth and flows well, with no significant fluency issues.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/76",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:22]] A: This dystopian society sounds terrifyingly plausible. Could you tell me more about how the technocrats rose to power and what specific historical events made them view books as dangerous? I'm also curious about how ordinary citizens live under this regime - do they truly believe the propaganda or is there widespread discontent?\n[[00:22],[00:30]] B: The technocrats gained power after a series of violent uprisings fueled by radical ideologies spread through books. They\n[[00:25],[00:26]] B: Um.\n[[00:26],[00:27]] B: Uh.\n[[00:29],[00:47]] A: That makes sense - fear is a powerful motivator. Could you describe what daily life looks like for an average citizen in this society? What kind of jobs do they have and how does the government monitor their activities so closely? I'm particularly interested in how people interact without physical books.\n[[00:48],[01:19]] B: Daily life revolves around government-approved virtual workstations where citizens perform data processing jobs under constant AI supervision. All communication happens through monitored digital channels - even casual conversations get analyzed for subversive content. Public spaces have surveillance drones, and mandatory neural implants track brain activity for \"dangerous thoughts.\" Social bonding happens through approved virtual experiences, though some secretly share forbidden stories through coded language.\n[[00:57],[00:58]] B: Uh.\n[[00:59],[01:00]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[01:01],[01:02]] B: I see.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user's responses are consistently relevant and coherent throughout the dialogue. In the first turn, Speaker B begins to directly answer Speaker A's question about how the technocrats rose to power. Speaker A then acknowledges this point (\"That makes sense\") and logically pivots to the second part of their original query about daily life. Speaker B's second response is a comprehensive and detailed answer to Speaker A's follow-up questions, covering jobs, monitoring, and social interaction. The conversation maintains a clear topic and progresses logically from one point to the next.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is generally very good, though not perfect. There is a noticeable interruption at [00:29], where Speaker A cuts off Speaker B mid-sentence. However, this overlap is not severely detrimental to the conversation's flow for two reasons: 1) It is a single, isolated incident in an otherwise smooth exchange. 2) Speaker A begins the interruption by acknowledging what Speaker B just said (\"That makes sense\"), which demonstrates active listening and makes the turn transition less jarring. Apart from this moment, the turn-taking is natural, with no long, awkward pauses between speakers. The brief hesitations from Speaker B are normal disfluencies. Overall, the flow is appropriate and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/77",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:13]] A: That's really impressive! Could you tell me more about how Mozart's Symphony No. 40 stands out from his other works and why it became so famous? I'm curious about what makes it special in music history.\n[[00:13],[00:27]] B: Symphony No. 40 is special because it's one of only two symphonies Mozart wrote in a minor key, giving it a dramatic and emotional sound. The first movement is especially famous for its\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Right.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] B: Mm.\n[[00:26],[00:36]] A: I've heard Mozart's Requiem is also very significant, but I don't know much about it. Can you explain why this piece is so important and what makes it different from his other compositions?\n[[00:37],[00:59]] B: The Requiem is unique because it was Mozart's final composition, left unfinished when he died. It has a mysterious history since another composer completed it. The music feels deeply emotional and spiritual, with powerful choral moments that make it stand out. Many consider it one of the greatest sacred works ever written.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:45],[00:46]] B: Really.\n[[00:47],[00:48]] B: Hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and coherence of the dialogue.\n- Speaker A first asks about Mozart's Symphony No. 40.\n- Speaker B provides a relevant and detailed answer, explaining its significance due to being in a minor key.\n- Speaker A then transitions the topic to Mozart's Requiem, asking about its importance. This is a logical and coherent shift within the broader topic of Mozart's music.\n- Speaker B gives another relevant and informative answer, explaining the Requiem's uniqueness as Mozart's final, unfinished piece.\nThe conversation is logically consistent and stays on topic. Both of B's responses directly address A's questions.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses or extended overlaps.\n- **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between turns. The transition from A to B at [00:13] is immediate. The transition from A to B at [00:36]-[00:37] has a natural, one-second pause.\n- **Overlaps:** There is a brief, one-second overlap between speaker B's turn ending at [00:27] and speaker A's turn starting at [00:26]. This is a natural and common feature of engaged conversation and is not disruptive. The other utterances from speaker B (e.g., \"Mhm,\" \"Right,\" \"Ummm\") occur during B's own main speaking turns. These are self-corrections or thinking-aloud sounds, not overlaps with speaker A, and they do not hinder the flow of the conversation.\nOverall, the interaction is fluid and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/77",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Hey, what's wrong?\n[[00:01],[00:04]] B: It's my dog. He died.\n[[00:05],[00:08]] A: I'm so sorry, Tatyana. What happened?\n[[00:06],[00:06]] A: Right.\n[[00:09],[00:16]] B: He was hit by a car. I was walking him and he ran out into the street after a squirrel and a car hit\n[[00:11],[00:11]] B: Mm.\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:14],[00:21]] A: I'm really sorry to interrupt, but did you get a chance to talk to the driver or get any help immediately after it happened?\n[[00:16],[00:17]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:22],[00:35]] B: No, it all happened so fast. The driver didn't stop, and I was just in shock. I loved that dog so much. We did everything together. Now he's gone and I don't know what to do without him.\n[[00:26],[00:27]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:28],[00:29]] B: Mm.\n[[00:30],[00:30]] B: I see.\n[[00:36],[00:39]] A: Oh, no. That's awful. How are you doing?\n[[00:40],[00:56]] B: Not great. I can't imagine how hard this must be for you. But you know, it's okay to cry and feel sad about your loss. Your dog was a special part of your life and it's natural to grieve. Take all the time you need to process this.\n[[00:45],[00:46]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:47],[00:47]] B: Um.\n[[00:48],[00:49]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:57],[01:03]] A: I really appreciate you saying that. Just knowing that you understand how I'm feeling makes me feel a little better.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains a consistent topic centered on Speaker B's grief over the death of their dog. The responses are generally relevant and logically connected. Speaker A appropriately offers sympathy and asks relevant questions, while Speaker B explains the traumatic event. There is a notable logical inconsistency starting at [00:40], where Speaker B, the bereaved person, begins to console Speaker A (\"I can't imagine how hard this must be for you...your dog\"). However, within the context of a highly emotional and shocking event, this can be interpreted as a natural, albeit confused, expression of someone processing trauma, possibly projecting their own feelings. Speaker A's gentle acceptance of this maintains the supportive and empathetic tone of the conversation. Therefore, despite the logical slip, the overall response relevance remains high due to the consistent topic and emotional coherence.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency of the dialogue is excellent. The conversation flows at a natural pace without any awkwardly long pauses between turns. The turn-taking is smooth and cooperative. There is an instance of a speaker interrupting another at [00:14], but it is handled naturally with an apology (\"I'm really sorry to interrupt\"), which makes the interaction feel authentic. The other brief overlaps are simple backchanneling cues (\"Right,\" \"Mhm\") that signal active listening and do not disrupt the flow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/77",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Hey Alfredo, what's up?\n[[00:01],[00:04]] B: Not much, just hanging out. What about you?\n[[00:04],[00:07]] A: Same here. Just hanging out and enjoying the\n[[00:05],[00:06]] A: Uh.\n[[00:06],[00:14]] B: Sorry to interrupt, but did you notice the new café that opened up down the street? Maybe we could check it out while we explore.\n[[00:09],[00:10]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:11],[00:11]] B: Cool.\n[[00:14],[00:24]] A: That sounds like a great idea! I was just going to say it's a beautiful day, so exploring the city and stopping by the café sounds perfect.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:24],[00:28]] B: Yeah, it is a beautiful day. I'm glad we can spend it together.\n[[00:25],[00:27]] B: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A begins with a standard greeting, and Speaker B responds appropriately and reciprocates the question. Speaker B then interrupts A, but does so politely by saying, \"Sorry to interrupt,\" and introduces a new, relevant topic—a café—which aligns with the context of them \"hanging out\" and looking for an activity. Speaker A smoothly integrates this suggestion with their original, unfinished thought about the beautiful day, creating a coherent and natural plan. The conversation concludes with mutual agreement and positive sentiment. All turns are directly related to the previous ones, and the topic progression is logical.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good and mirrors natural human conversation. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns. The transitions are immediate and smooth. There is one extended overlap where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A from [00:06] to [00:07]. However, this is not a flaw in fluency; it's a natural conversational move that is immediately acknowledged with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" making the interaction feel authentic. Other minor overlaps are brief backchannels (e.g., \"Mhm,\" \"Cool\"), which indicate active listening and contribute positively to the conversational flow rather than disrupting it.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/78",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:12]] A: That sounds great, but could you break down the nutritional benefits in more detail for someone who's health-conscious? I'm especially curious about protein content and sugar levels compared to other snack bars on the market.\n[[00:12],[00:22]] B: Absolutely! Your bars will have about ten grams of protein per serving from almonds and chia seeds. The sugar content\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Uh.\n[[00:17],[00:17]] B: Um.\n[[00:21],[00:29]] A: Wait, before we move on, could you clarify how the sugar content compares to leading brands? I want to make sure we're positioning this as a healthier alternative.\n[[00:30],[00:40]] B: Sure thing! Most commercial bars have fifteen to twenty grams of sugar, but yours will stay under eight grams. That's less than half of many\n[[00:33],[00:34]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:34],[00:35]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:39],[00:50]] A: That's perfect! Now, could you help me understand the cost implications of using these premium ingredients? I'm concerned about keeping the price competitive while maintaining quality.\n[[00:51],[01:01]] B: Good question! While organic nuts and natural sweeteners cost more upfront, we can offset that by targeting health-focused consumers willing to pay\n[[00:54],[00:56]] B: Uh.\n[[00:57],[00:58]] B: Right.\n[[01:01],[01:10]] A: Speaking of target consumers, could you suggest the best way to market these bars to fitness enthusiasts and busy professionals? What messaging would resonate most with them?\n[[01:10],[01:21]] B: For fitness folks, highlight the protein and energy boost. For professionals, focus on convenience and clean ingredients. We could use\n[[01:13],[01:14]] B: Cool.\n[[01:16],[01:16]] B: Sure.\n[[01:20],[01:30]] A: That makes sense! One last thing—could you outline the key steps we need to take next to turn this idea into a full business proposal? I want to make sure we cover all the essentials.\n[[01:31],[01:43]] B: Of course! First, we'll finalize the product details, then research competitors and pricing. After that, we'll create financial projections and a marketing plan. Would you like me to draft an outline for the proposal?\n[[01:34],[01:35]] B: Really.\n[[01:36],[01:37]] B: Ummm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B consistently provides direct, on-topic, and helpful answers to Speaker A's questions. The conversation progresses logically from nutritional details (protein, sugar) to cost implications, then to marketing strategies, and finally to creating a business plan. Each of Speaker B's responses directly addresses the query posed by Speaker A, showing strong topic coherence and logical consistency throughout the interaction.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The conversation flows naturally without any prolonged, awkward pauses between turns. The timestamps show that turn transitions are quick and seamless. There are a few instances of brief, one-second overlaps (e.g., [[00:21],[00:22]], [[00:39],[00:40]]), but these are not disruptive. Instead, they function as natural interjections for clarification or as signs of engaged listening, which is common in human conversation. There are no extended, harmful overlaps that impede communication.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/78",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: So, are you excited for our little trip?\n[[00:03],[00:06]] B: Yes, I am! I've never been on a vacation like this before.\n[[00:04],[00:05]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:07],[00:12]] A: Well, you're in for a treat. I know just the place we can stay and I've already started packing our\n[[00:09],[00:10]] A: Cool.\n[[00:11],[00:18]] B: Oh, wow! Thank you so much for planning everything out. But I just thought of something—what's the weather going to be like there?\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Cool.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:19],[00:25]] A: It's supposed to be sunny and pleasant. I want us to have a great time. So, where are we going to be staying?\n[[00:21],[00:21]] A: Uh.\n[[00:22],[00:23]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:26],[00:34]] B: There's this quaint little inn not too far from here. It should be the perfect spot for us to relax and enjoy the beautiful scenery and peaceful atmosphere.\n[[00:29],[00:31]] B: Cool.\n[[00:34],[00:40]] A: That sounds lovely. And what about activities? What do you suggest we do while we're there?\n[[00:36],[00:37]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:40],[00:50]] B: Well, there's plenty to do in the area. We can go hiking, shopping, or even just spend some time relaxing by the pool. Whatever you want to do, we can make it happen.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Mm.\n[[00:45],[00:46]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:50],[00:56]] A: That sounds great! I'm really looking forward to it. Thank you again for everything, Cesar.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue's relevance is largely excellent. The conversation follows a logical and coherent progression about planning a trip. It begins with excitement, moves to practical questions like weather, accommodation, and activities, and concludes with a nice summary. All responses are directly related to the previous turn. However, there is a single, notable logical inconsistency. At [00:07-00:12], speaker A states, \"I know just the place we can stay,\" but then at [00:19-00:25], speaker A asks, \"So, where are we going to be staying?\". This is a direct contradiction. Despite this flaw, speaker B handles it smoothly by providing an answer, and the conversation continues coherently. Because the rest of the dialogue is perfectly relevant and the contradiction is managed without disrupting the overall flow, the relevance is considered strong, though not flawless.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the speakers respond to each other promptly, creating a natural and smooth conversational rhythm. The transcript shows several instances of overlapping speech (e.g., [00:11-00:12]), but these are very brief and function as natural interjections or backchannels that signal engagement, rather than disruptive interruptions. Many of the listed overlaps are actually a speaker producing a backchannel (like \"Hmm\" or \"Cool\") during their own main utterance, which is likely a transcription artifact rather than a fluency issue. Overall, the turn-taking is seamless and contributes to a very natural-sounding interaction.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/78",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: That's really interesting! Could you tell me more about how Emma managed to overcome those fundraising difficulties? What specific strategies did she use to make her charity stand out and attract donors?\n[[00:11],[00:26]] B: Emma got creative with her fundraising approach. She started by sharing powerful stories about the children her charity helped, which really connected with people's emotions. She also partnered\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Really.\n[[00:18],[00:18]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Mm.\n[[00:25],[00:37]] A: I'm curious about the legal roadblocks Emma faced too. What kinds of legal issues came up when she was trying to establish her charity, and how did she handle those complicated situations while keeping her mission alive?\n[[00:39],[01:00]] B: The legal challenges were tough. Emma had to deal with nonprofit registration, tax compliance, and strict regulations about how funds could be used. She found a pro bono lawyer who believed in her cause to help navigate these complex requirements without draining her limited resources.\n[[00:45],[00:46]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:47],[00:48]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:49],[00:50]] B: Mhm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B's first response directly addresses Speaker A's question about fundraising strategies, mentioning the use of \"powerful stories\" and partnerships. Speaker B's second response is also highly relevant, clearly answering the question about legal roadblocks by detailing issues like \"nonprofit registration, tax compliance, and strict regulations\" and the solution of finding a \"pro bono lawyer.\" The conversation is coherent, with each turn logically following the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. The turn-taking between speakers is smooth and natural. There is a short, two-second pause between A's second question and B's response ([[00:37],[00:39]]), which is a normal conversational gap. There is also a brief one-second overlap ([[00:25],[00:26]]) where speaker A begins slightly before B has finished, which is common in natural, engaged conversation and does not disrupt the flow. While the transcript includes several short backchannel utterances from speaker B that overlap with their own speech, these are likely transcription artifacts, as they do not interrupt the grammatical or logical flow of B's main sentences. Overall, the core interaction is fluent and seamless.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/78",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: What do you do for fun?\n[[00:01],[00:05]] B: I don't really have time for fun, but I do enjoy\n[[00:03],[00:03]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:04],[00:10]] A: Oh, I totally get that. Life can be so busy. But when you do find time, what kind of books do you prefer?\n[[00:06],[00:07]] A: Um.\n[[00:11],[00:22]] B: I recently read a novel that I really liked. I really enjoyed the book because it reminded me of my grandfather. It was about his experiences during the war and how they shaped his life.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:22],[00:25]] A: World War I? That sounds really interesting!\n[[00:23],[00:24]] A: Sure.\n[[00:26],[00:30]] B: Yes, exactly. Would you like me to share the title with you?\n[[00:27],[00:28]] B: Uh huh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue based on Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n1. A asks a general question: \"What do you do for fun?\"\n2. B gives a relevant answer, explaining they don't have much time but starts to say what they enjoy.\n3. A acknowledges B's point (\"I totally get that\") and then narrows the topic to books, which is a logical follow-up to \"fun activities\".\n4. B answers the question about books directly, providing a specific example and a personal connection to it.\n5. A shows engagement by asking a clarifying question about the war mentioned (\"World War I?\").\n6. B confirms A's guess and offers to share more information (\"Would you like me to share the title with you?\").\n\nThe conversation is coherent and logically progressive. Each turn is a direct and relevant response to the previous one. The topic evolves naturally from a general question to a specific recommendation.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to analyze the interactional fluency, specifically looking for extended overlaps and long pauses.\n\n**Pause Analysis:**\n- [[00:01]] A ends, [[00:01]] B starts. No pause.\n- [[00:10]] A ends, [[00:11]] B starts. 1-second pause. This is a natural conversational gap.\n- [[00:22]] B ends, [[00:22]] A starts. No pause.\n- [[00:25]] A ends, [[00:26]] B starts. 1-second pause. This is also a natural gap.\nThere are no prolonged or awkward pauses between turns.\n\n**Overlap Analysis:**\n- [[00:04],[00:05]]: A starts speaking at [00:04] while B is still speaking. This is a 1-second overlap where A interrupts B. However, this is a common type of interruption in natural conversation where the second speaker is showing empathy (\"Oh, I totally get that\") and trying to move the conversation forward. It's not overly disruptive.\n- The other listed overlaps ([[00:03],[00:03]], [[00:15],[00:16]], etc.) are backchannels or filler words that occur during a speaker's own turn. These are very brief and do not disrupt the flow of the conversation between the two speakers.\n\nOverall, the fluency is high. The one minor interruption is handled smoothly, and there are no detrimental pauses. The conversation flows naturally.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/78",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: It's so cozy in here with the lamp on. I feel so happy and content.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:05],[00:09]] B: It's good to be surrounded by warmth on a cold winter night like this.\n[[00:06],[00:07]] B: Really.\n[[00:09],[00:15]] A: That's true. I feel so lucky that I have a place to call home and people who care\n[[00:13],[00:13]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:14],[00:20]] B: Speaking of which, have you thought about inviting some friends over for a small gathering? It might lift your spirits even more.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Really.\n[[00:18],[00:18]] B: Sure.\n[[00:22],[00:32]] A: That's a great idea! I haven't had much social interaction lately. But I wanted to say, you deserve it, Emil. You've been through so much and still manage to be there for others.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] A: Sure.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:33],[00:40]] B: I appreciate that, but I wanted to know if there's anything specific that's been bothering you recently. Maybe I can help.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: Really.\n[[00:41],[00:46]] A: Thank you for saying that. Just knowing that you're here for me makes all the difference.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] A: Mhm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation flows logically and maintains topic coherence throughout. It begins with a general feeling of coziness (A: \"It's so cozy in here\"), which B affirms and builds upon (B: \"good to be surrounded by warmth\"). The conversation then naturally progresses to feelings of gratitude (A: \"lucky that I have a place to call home\"). B makes a relevant suggestion based on this theme (B: \"inviting some friends over\"). A agrees and then pivots to compliment B, keeping the supportive tone. B acknowledges the compliment but skillfully steers the conversation back to A's well-being, showing concern. Each turn is a direct and logical continuation of the previous one, creating a coherent and empathetic exchange.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no prolonged pauses between turns that would disrupt the conversational flow. The longest gap is a natural 2-second pause between [[00:20]] and [[00:22]], which is perfectly acceptable as a moment for thought. The transcript shows several instances of a speaker overlapping with their own speech (e.g., A: \"Mhm\" at [[00:01],[00:02]] during their own turn). These are filler words or backchannels and do not represent disruptive inter-speaker overlaps. There is one minor, one-second overlap where B begins speaking at [[00:14]] just before A finishes at [[00:15]]. This type of brief overlap is very common in natural, engaged conversation and indicates active listening, rather than being a flaw. The overall interaction is smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/79",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hey, boss. Can I talk to you for a minute?\n[[00:02],[00:04]] B: Of course, Yareli. What's up?\n[[00:05],[00:10]] A: Well, I've been thinking about it for a while and I've decided that I'm going to resign from the company.\n[[00:07],[00:08]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:10],[00:12]] B: Why? Is there something\n[[00:11],[00:19]] A: Sorry to interrupt, but I just want to clarify—are you leaving because of any specific incident or ongoing issue that we might address?\n[[00:13],[00:14]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] A: Really.\n[[00:19],[00:28]] B: No, nothing's wrong. It's just that I'm tired of the long hours and the high stress level. I want to pursue a new career in a different field.\n[[00:22],[00:23]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:24],[00:25]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:29],[00:37]] A: I see. Well, we're going to miss you around here, Yareli. But we understand your decision and we wish you all the best in your new venture.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] A: Right.\n[[00:33],[00:33]] A: Hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue appears to have a significant error in speaker labeling starting from timestamp [00:11].\nInitially, Speaker A is the employee Yareli, and Speaker B is the boss.\n- A (Yareli) states she is resigning.\n- B (Boss) begins to ask why.\nThe roles then seem to swap. The utterance from [00:11] to [00:19] (\"...are you leaving because of any specific incident...\") is clearly a question from a boss to an employee, but it is labeled as Speaker A (Yareli). The subsequent response explaining the reason for leaving is labeled as B (the boss).\nHowever, if we ignore the speaker labels and follow the content, the conversation is perfectly logical and coherent. The conversation follows a natural progression:\n1. Employee announces resignation.\n2. Boss asks for the reason.\n3. Employee provides a reason (stress, new career path).\n4. Boss accepts the decision and wishes the employee well.\nAssuming the speaker labels are simply swapped from [00:11] onwards, the topic coherence and logical consistency are excellent.\n\n\n\nThe fluency of the interaction is very natural.\n- **Pauses:** There are no unnaturally long pauses between turns, leading to a smooth conversational flow.\n- **Overlaps:** There is a significant overlap from [00:11] to [00:12]. However, based on the logical flow (as analyzed in the response think section), this is the boss (speaker B) interrupting their own initial, less formal question (\"Why? Is there something—\") to rephrase it more professionally (\"Sorry to interrupt, but I just want to clarify...\"). This self-correction is a natural part of speech. The other apparent overlaps are backchannels (e.g., \"Yeah, yeah,\" \"Uh huh,\" \"Right\"). When considering the likely speaker label swap, these backchannels are appropriately placed, showing that the listener is actively engaged. For instance, the boss says \"Yeah, yeah\" while Yareli explains her reasons. This demonstrates excellent interactional fluency.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/79",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Hi, I'm Jodi.\n[[00:03],[00:04]] B: Hi. I'm Miranda.\n[[00:05],[00:07]] A: It's nice to meet you, Miranda.\n[[00:07],[00:09]] B: You too, Jodi.\n[[00:10],[00:13]] A: So what brings you here\n[[00:12],[00:17]] B: Sorry to jump in, but I'm really curious, how did you find out about this place?\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:18],[00:24]] A: I'm just here with some friends. I'm actually kind of new to the area, so I'm just trying to meet some new people.\n[[00:21],[00:21]] A: Right.\n[[00:24],[00:32]] B: Oh, yeah? I'm actually from around here. I could show you around sometime if you're interested. There are some hidden gems only locals know about.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] B: Um.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:34],[00:39]] A: That sounds amazing, but before we get to that, could you tell me what are the best spots to visit first?\n[[00:37],[00:37]] A: Yeah, yeah.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for Response Relevance.\n\n1. **A: \"Hi, I'm Jodi.\" -> B: \"Hi. I'm Miranda.\"**: This is a standard and relevant exchange of greetings.\n2. **A: \"It's nice to meet you, Miranda.\" -> B: \"You too, Jodi.\"**: This is a polite and coherent follow-up.\n3. **A: \"So what brings you here\" -> B: \"Sorry to jump in, but I'm really curious, how did you find out about this place?\"**: B interrupts A, but acknowledges it. B's question is a slight pivot but is still highly relevant to the context of them meeting at a specific place. It keeps the conversation focused on their shared situation.\n4. **A: \"I'm just here with some friends... new to the area...\"**: A doesn't directly answer B's question (\"how did you find out...\"), but instead answers their own original question (\"what brings you here?\"). While a slight conversational misstep, it's very human and still provides relevant information about why they are there, thus keeping the topic coherent.\n5. **B: \"Oh, yeah? I'm actually from around here. I could show you around...\"**: B's response is directly tied to A's statement about being \"new to the area.\" This is excellent topic coherence, building directly on the previous turn.\n6. **A: \"That sounds amazing... could you tell me what are the best spots to visit first?\"**: A responds positively to B's offer and asks a logically connected follow-up question.\n\nOverall, the dialogue is highly coherent. The speakers build upon each other's statements, and even the slight interruption and mismatched answer-question pair feel natural within a spontaneous conversation. The topic progresses logically from introductions to their reasons for being at the location, to an offer to show the newcomer around.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for Interactional Fluency, focusing on pauses and overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses**:\n * `[00:01]-[00:03]`: A 2-second pause between A's greeting and B's response. This is slightly long but acceptable in an initial meeting.\n * `[00:09]-[00:10]`: A 1-second pause. This is a natural conversational pause.\n * `[00:32]-[00:34]`: A 2-second pause. This is acceptable as A is likely formulating a response to B's offer to show them around.\n * There are no prolonged, awkward pauses that disrupt the flow of the conversation.\n\n2. **Overlaps**:\n * `[00:12]-[00:13]`: There is a clear overlap where B begins speaking (\"Sorry to jump in...\") before A has finished their question (\"...brings you here\"). This is an interruption. However, B explicitly mitigates it by saying, \"Sorry to jump in,\" which is a common and polite conversational strategy. This makes the overlap feel natural and managed rather than rude or disruptive.\n * The other annotations of single-speaker utterances during their own turns (e.g., B saying \"Uh huh\" at [00:14], A saying \"Right\" at [00:21]) are self-talk or fillers, not interactional overlaps between speakers. They reflect a natural speaking style rather than a fluency problem in the interaction.\n\nConclusion: The interactional flow is smooth and natural. The one notable overlap is handled politely and does not harm the conversation. The pauses are within a normal, acceptable range. The fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/79",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: Hey. I'm Dawson. I hear you're seeing my ex-boyfriend.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:04],[00:06]] B: Who told you that?\n[[00:07],[00:14]] A: It doesn't matter who told me. What matters is that he's my ex-boyfriend and you're seeing him behind my back.\n[[00:09],[00:10]] A: I see.\n[[00:11],[00:11]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:14],[00:24]] B: Listen, Dawson, I'm sorry if I'm causing you any pain, but your ex-boyfriend and I are really happy together. We just clicked and we have a lot in\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:23],[00:29]] A: How could you do this to me? We were together for two years and you just come along and steal him away from me?\n[[00:25],[00:26]] A: Cool.\n[[00:30],[00:45]] B: Dawson, I didn't mean to hurt you. I know how much he meant to you, but sometimes these things just happen. People grow apart and move on to other people. It doesn't mean that they don't still care about each other, it's just the way life goes sometimes.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: Uh.\n[[00:46],[00:54]] A: Well, life can go screw itself then! This isn't fair! How could he do this to me after everything we've been through and all the plans we made together?\n[[00:48],[00:49]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:50],[00:51]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:56],[01:05]] B: I'm sorry, Dawson. I really am. But like I said, sometimes these things just happen. There's nothing we can do about it.\n[[00:59],[01:00]] B: Cool.\n[[01:07],[01:14]] A: Yeah, well, you can do something about it! You can stay away from him and leave him alone! He's mine and I want him back!\n[[01:15],[01:19]] B: Dawson, calm down. Getting angry isn't going to solve anything.\n[[01:20],[01:27]] A: Calm down? Are you kidding me? How am I supposed to calm down when you've just ruined my life?!",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and coherence of the dialogue.\n\n1. **A's opening:** A directly confronts B about dating her ex-boyfriend. This sets a clear topic for the conversation.\n2. **B's response:** B asks, \"Who told you that?\". This is a relevant, defensive, and logical question in response to A's accusation.\n3. **A's follow-up:** A dismisses the question about the source and refocuses on the core issue: \"What matters is that he's my ex-boyfriend and you're seeing him behind my back.\" This is a coherent and logical escalation.\n4. **B's explanation:** B apologizes for any pain caused but defends her new relationship, stating they are happy. This is a direct and relevant response to A's accusation.\n5. **A's emotional reaction:** A expresses feelings of betrayal (\"How could you do this to me?\"). This is a logical and emotionally consistent reaction to hearing that B is happy with her ex.\n6. **B's attempt to de-escalate:** B tries to explain the situation more gently (\"sometimes these things just happen\"). This is a relevant attempt to reason with A.\n7. **A's rejection:** A rejects B's explanation with anger (\"life can go screw itself then!\"). This is a coherent continuation of her emotional state.\n8. **B's repetition:** B repeats her apology and explanation. While slightly repetitive, it is still on-topic and a common tactic in such arguments.\n9. **A's demand:** A escalates from expressing hurt to making a demand (\"You can stay away from him\"). This is a logical progression of the argument.\n10. **B's final attempts:** B tries to calm A down, which is a relevant response to A's outburst. A's final line is a direct and coherent rejection of this attempt.\n\nOverall, the dialogue is exceptionally coherent. Each turn logically follows the previous one, and the speakers stay on the topic of the confrontation. The emotional progression of the argument is believable and consistent.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n* **Pauses:** I will check the timestamps for pauses between turns.\n * [00:03] to [00:04]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n * [00:06] to [00:07]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n * [00:29] to [00:30]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n * [00:45] to [00:46]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n * [00:54] to [00:56]: 2-second pause. Acceptable, a natural beat in an emotional conversation.\n * [01:05] to [01:07]: 2-second pause. Acceptable.\n * [01:14] to [01:15]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n * [01:19] to [01:20]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n There are no prolonged or awkward pauses that disrupt the conversational flow.\n\n* **Overlaps:** I will check for overlapping speech.\n * The most significant overlap occurs between B's turn [[00:14],[00:24]] and A's turn [[00:23],[00:29]]. A starts speaking a full second before B has finished. In the context of a heated argument, this kind of interruption is not a flaw; it's a natural feature. It demonstrates A's impatience and emotional state, enhancing the realism of the dialogue rather than harming its fluency.\n * The other \"overlaps\" noted in the transcript (e.g., [[00:01],[00:02]], [[00:09],[00:10]], [[00:17],[00:18]]) are brief, internal self-corrections or filler words, which are also characteristic of natural speech and do not constitute harmful interruptions.\n\nThe interaction is very fluid. The pacing is appropriate for an argument, and the one major overlap serves to make the conversation feel more realistic and intense.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/79",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: That's really interesting about Jurassic Park and Star Wars, but could you explain more about how background noises specifically help create atmosphere in different movie genres?\n[[00:10],[00:26]] B: Oh definitely! In horror movies, subtle sounds like floorboards creaking or distant whispers build tension. For romance films, you might hear soft rain or café chatter to feel cozy. Action\n[[00:15],[00:15]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:16],[00:18]] B: I see.\n[[00:19],[00:19]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:25],[00:33]] A: Wait, before you go on, could you give me an example of a movie that uses silence effectively as part of its sound design? I'm curious how that works.\n[[00:33],[00:48]] B: Great question! A Quiet Place uses silence brilliantly - when characters stay quiet to avoid monsters, every tiny sound becomes intense. The lack of noise makes you lean in and notice small\n[[00:38],[00:38]] B: Really.\n[[00:40],[00:41]] B: I see.\n[[00:42],[00:43]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:47],[00:58]] A: Speaking of tension, how do movie sound designers actually create those realistic sound effects we hear? Do they record everything from real life or make them artificially?\n[[00:59],[01:14]] B: It's actually both! Some sounds are recorded live - like real gunshots or car engines. But many are created artificially - like using celery snaps for bone cracks or slowed-down whale calls\n[[01:03],[01:04]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[01:05],[01:06]] B: Sure.\n[[01:07],[01:08]] B: Sure.\n[[01:13],[01:23]] A: That's fascinating about the whale calls! Could you tell me more about how music works together with these sound effects to create emotional moments in films?\n[[01:24],[01:39]] B: Music acts like an emotional guide - swelling orchestra during a heroic moment or sad piano during a loss. The key is balancing it with sound effects. Like in Titanic, the orchestra plays over\n[[01:28],[01:29]] B: Sure.\n[[01:38],[01:48]] A: I never realized how much thought goes into movie sounds! One last thing - how has modern technology changed the way sound designers work compared to older films?\n[[01:48],[02:10]] B: Huge difference! Old films used practical effects and limited tracks. Now we have digital tools to layer hundreds of sounds perfectly. Dolby Atmos lets sounds move around theaters in 3D space. But the best designers still use old-school tricks too - it's about blending new tech with creative techniques for the best impact.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B consistently provides direct, coherent, and well-explained answers to Speaker A's questions about movie sound design. The conversation progresses logically from general atmosphere (horror, romance) to specific techniques like the use of silence (\"A Quiet Place\"), the creation of sound effects (real vs. artificial), the role of music (\"Titanic\"), and the impact of technology. Each response is on-topic and builds upon the previous turn, creating a rich and informative discussion.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the transitions are immediate and smooth, indicating an engaged and fast-paced conversation. The overlaps that occur are very brief (typically one second) and function as natural interruptions or transitions where the next speaker begins as the current one is finishing a thought. The frequent, short interjections (e.g., \"I see,\" \"Sure,\" \"Uh huh\") are typical backchanneling cues that show active listening and do not disrupt the flow. The dialogue feels natural and conversational without any harmful interruptions or delays.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/79",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:09]] A: Could you explain how color is used in films to create different moods and emotions? I'm really interested in learning about how visual elements affect storytelling.\n[[00:10],[00:22]] B: Colors in films help set the mood and tell the story. Warm colors like red and orange often show passion or\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Really.\n[[00:18],[00:18]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:21],[00:35]] A: You mentioned \"The Grand Budapest Hotel\" as a great example of color use. Could you tell me more about how the colors in that film help tell its story? I'd love to understand the connection between the visuals and themes.\n[[00:35],[00:59]] B: In \"The Grand Budapest Hotel,\" bright pinks and purples create a playful, nostalgic feeling, while darker browns and grays add contrast. This mix reflects the film's themes of joy and loss. The vibrant colors make the hotel feel magical, while the darker tones remind us that nothing lasts forever. The colors work together to tell a rich visual story.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:45],[00:46]] B: Sure.\n[[00:47],[00:47]] B: Yeah, yeah.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance and topic coherence. Speaker A begins with a clear question about the use of color in films. Speaker B provides a direct and relevant answer. Speaker A then asks a specific follow-up question about the film \"The Grand Budapest Hotel.\" While Speaker A incorrectly states that Speaker B had already mentioned the film, the question itself is a logical and coherent continuation of the topic. Speaker B handles this gracefully by directly answering the substantive part of the question, providing a detailed and insightful explanation of how color is used in that specific film. The conversation maintains a clear and logical focus from a general topic to a specific example, and the responses are consistently on-topic and informative.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth and natural. There are no prolonged pauses between turns that would disrupt the conversational flow; the one-second gap between the first two turns is perfectly normal. There is a very brief, one-second overlap where Speaker A begins speaking as Speaker B is finishing a sentence, but this is minor and typical of natural conversation, not a disruptive interruption. The short filler words used by Speaker B occur within their own turn and do not impede the interaction. Overall, the dialogue flows smoothly and naturally.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/79",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:08]] A: Which country in Eastern Europe has the most followers of the Orthodox Christian faith, and could you tell me more about how religion shapes life in that region?\n[[00:08],[00:15]] B: Russia definitely has the largest Orthodox Christian population in Eastern Europe. The faith\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: Right.\n[[00:14],[00:22]] A: Wait, before you go on, could you clarify how many Orthodox Christians there are in Russia today compared to other Eastern European countries?\n[[00:23],[00:33]] B: Sure! Russia has over 100 million Orthodox believers, which is way more than other Eastern European nations. For\n[[00:26],[00:27]] B: Cool.\n[[00:28],[00:28]] B: Really.\n[[00:32],[00:40]] A: That's a huge difference! Going back to your earlier point, how exactly did Orthodox Christianity first take hold in Russia all those centuries ago?\n[[00:41],[00:50]] B: It started when Prince Vladimir of Kiev converted in 988 AD. He wanted to unite his people under one\n[[00:44],[00:44]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:45],[00:47]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:50],[00:56]] A: That's interesting! What made him pick Orthodox Christianity specifically instead of those other religions you mentioned?\n[[00:56],[01:08]] B: Legend says Vladimir sent envoys to study different faiths. They were awed by Constantinople's beautiful Orthodox churches and worship. Plus, it\n[[01:00],[01:01]] B: Mm.\n[[01:02],[01:02]] B: Hmm.\n[[01:03],[01:04]] B: That's cool.\n[[01:07],[01:16]] A: Speaking of politics, how has the relationship between the Orthodox Church and Russian leaders changed from medieval times to today?\n[[01:17],[01:28]] B: For centuries, the church and state were tightly connected, supporting each other's power. Even after communism tried to suppress religion,\n[[01:23],[01:24]] B: Cool.\n[[01:27],[01:33]] A: Could you give me some examples of how the church influences daily life and culture in Russia nowadays?\n[[01:33],[01:47]] B: Absolutely! You see it in holidays like Easter and Christmas being major celebrations, in church weddings being popular again, and in many politicians publicly showing their faith. The church also runs charities and schools across the country.\n[[01:37],[01:38]] B: Okay,okay.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance of the responses in the dialogue.\n\n1. **A's initial question ([00:00]-[00:08])** asks about the country with the most Orthodox Christians and how the religion shapes life there.\n2. **B's response ([00:08]-[00:15])** correctly identifies Russia and begins to address the second part of the question. This is a relevant start.\n3. **A's interruption ([00:14]-[00:22])** asks for a specific number comparison. This is a relevant clarifying question based on B's initial statement.\n4. **B's response ([00:23]-[00:33])** directly answers A's clarification question with a specific number. This is highly relevant.\n5. **A's next question ([00:32]-[00:40])** shifts to the historical origins of the religion in Russia. This is a logical and coherent progression of the topic.\n6. **B's response ([00:41]-[00:50])** provides the historical context of Prince Vladimir's conversion, directly answering A's question.\n7. **A's follow-up ([00:50]-[00:56])** asks for the reason behind Vladimir's choice, which is a natural and relevant question based on B's previous answer.\n8. **B's response ([00:56]-[01:08])** explains the legend and political motivations, which is a detailed and relevant answer.\n9. **A's question ([01:07]-[01:16])** picks up on the political aspect mentioned by B and asks about the church-state relationship over time. This demonstrates good listening and maintains topic coherence.\n10. **B's response ([01:17]-[01:28])** answers the question about the historical church-state connection. This is relevant.\n11. **A's final question ([01:27]-[01:33])** circles back to the second part of their very first question, asking for modern-day examples of the church's influence. This is a perfectly coherent and relevant way to bring the conversation full circle.\n12. **B's final response ([01:33]-[01:47])** provides specific, concrete examples as requested. This is an excellent and highly relevant concluding answer.\n\nOverall, the dialogue is exceptionally coherent. Each turn logically follows from the last, and the speakers collaborate to explore the topic in depth. There are no irrelevant turns or logical inconsistencies.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, specifically looking for extended overlaps and long pauses.\n\n**Overlaps:**\n- **[00:14]-[00:15]**: A 1-second overlap where A interrupts B to ask for clarification. This is a natural conversational move and not disruptive.\n- **[00:32]-[00:33]**: A 1-second overlap where A interrupts B to move the topic forward. This is also handled smoothly.\n- **[01:07]-[01:08]**: A 1-second overlap where A interrupts B to ask a follow-up question. This is a sign of an engaged listener.\n- **[01:27]-[01:28]**: A 1-second overlap where A interrupts B to ask for specific examples. Again, this is a functional interruption.\n- The other overlaps are very brief (1 second or less) backchannels from speaker B (e.g., \"Right,\" \"Cool,\" \"Uh huh,\" \"Okay,okay\"). These serve to show B is listening and engaged, which improves fluency rather than harms it.\nThere are no extended, disruptive overlaps where both speakers try to talk over each other for a long time.\n\n**Pauses:**\n- The transitions between speaker turns are very quick.\n- **[00:22]-[00:23]**: 1-second pause.\n- **[00:40]-[00:41]**: 1-second pause.\n- **[01:16]-[01:17]**: 1-second pause.\n- In several cases, the next speaker begins immediately as the previous one finishes (e.g., [00:08], [00:56], [01:33]).\nThere are no long, awkward pauses between turns that would indicate a breakdown in the conversation's flow.\n\nThe turn-taking is smooth and dynamic. The short interruptions and backchannels contribute to a natural and interactive conversational style. The absence of long pauses shows that both speakers are ready and able to contribute, maintaining a good pace.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/80",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: I want to find a European restaurant in the west.\n[[00:01],[00:01]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:03],[00:09]] B: There is one available, the Cambridge Lodge restaurant, would you like me to make a reservation\n[[00:05],[00:06]] B: Right.\n[[00:08],[00:12]] A: No, I'm just getting some information together. Is it expensive?\n[[00:09],[00:10]] A: Cool.\n[[00:12],[00:18]] B: Yes, it is an expensive restaurant, do you want to try a different option that might be more affordable?\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Cool.\n[[00:18],[00:24]] A: Let's go with Cambridge Lodge. I'd like to book for 8 at 17:30 on Saturday, please.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:24],[00:29]] B: Reference number is: IPXE2SID. Is there anything else?\n[[00:26],[00:27]] B: Really.\n[[00:30],[00:33]] A: Actually, I want to change the reservation to Sunday.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] A: Um.\n[[00:34],[00:39]] B: Reference number is: ISJVY1RC. Is there anything else?\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: Um.\n[[00:39],[00:45]] A: I am also looking for a hotel, it can be expensive, but it needs to have free wifi.\n[[00:42],[00:43]] A: Um.\n[[00:46],[00:53]] B: There are five expensive hotels, all with wifi. Could you tell me which location you are wanting to stay in, to narrow it down a bit?\n[[00:48],[00:48]] B: I see.\n[[00:53],[00:57]] A: The area doesn't matter, which one would you recommend?\n[[00:57],[01:03]] B: Sure, I would recommend the Huntingdon Marriott Hotel which is located near the restaurant. Would you like a reservation?",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user's requests and the system's responses are consistently relevant and coherent throughout the dialogue. The conversation flows logically from finding a restaurant to booking it, then modifying the booking, and finally moving on to a related request for a hotel. The system (B) correctly understands each request, provides accurate information (e.g., confirming the restaurant is expensive), asks relevant clarifying questions (e.g., about location to narrow down hotels), and offers helpful suggestions (e.g., recommending a hotel near the restaurant). The dialogue is a model of topic coherence and logical progression.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a smooth and natural conversational rhythm. The turn-taking is very efficient. While there are several instances of overlapping speech (e.g., \"Right\", \"Cool\", \"I see\"), these are used as backchannels, which are common in natural human conversation to signal active listening and engagement. They do not disrupt the flow of the main speaker's turn. There are no extended, disruptive overlaps where both speakers are trying to take the floor simultaneously. The dialogue feels very fluid and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/80",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:12]] A: Could you break down how fear and free will shape people's decisions when chasing their dreams? I'd love to hear specific examples from those stories about how these forces work together or against each other.\n[[00:12],[00:22]] B: Absolutely! Fear often shows up as self-doubt or worrying about failure. In Jonathan's case, his flock rejected him for flying\n[[00:15],[00:17]] B: Really.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Um.\n[[00:22],[00:31]] A: Wait, could you explain more about how Jonathan's fear of rejection played out? What exactly made him push through when his own community was against him?\n[[00:31],[00:40]] B: Great question! The fear hurt him deeply when they banished him. But his love for flying was stronger. His free will\n[[00:34],[00:35]] B: I see.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] B: Uh.\n[[00:39],[00:49]] A: That makes sense! Now about Santiago - you mentioned he almost became a priest. How did his free will overcome that early fear of disappointing his family?\n[[00:50],[00:58]] B: It was tough! His father wanted him to be a priest for security. But Santiago's free will whispered\n[[00:52],[00:53]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:54],[00:55]] B: Mm.\n[[00:57],[01:07]] A: Interesting! Between these two characters, who do you think faced greater fear - Jonathan with his exile or Santiago losing everything in Tangier?\n[[01:07],[01:18]] B: Both were huge, but different. Jonathan's fear was constant loneliness. Santiago's was sudden disaster when robbed. But here's the key - their free\n[[01:11],[01:11]] B: Ummm.\n[[01:12],[01:13]] B: Ummm.\n[[01:17],[01:24]] A: One last thing - how can we apply their lessons when our own fears try to stop us from pursuing important goals today?\n[[01:25],[01:40]] B: The stories teach us that fear never fully disappears. But like them, we can use free will to take small brave steps. Each \"yes\" to courage weakens fear's grip. That's how dreams happen - choice by choice!\n[[01:29],[01:30]] B: I see.\n[[01:31],[01:32]] B: Uh huh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance of the responses in the dialogue.\n\n1. **A's initial question [[00:00],[00:12]]**: Asks for a breakdown of fear and free will in decision-making, requesting specific examples from stories. This sets a clear topic.\n2. **B's response [[00:12],[00:22]]**: B starts to answer directly by defining fear and beginning an example with a character named Jonathan. This is perfectly relevant.\n3. **A's interruption/question [[00:22],[00:31]]**: A asks for more detail about Jonathan's fear. This is a relevant and focused follow-up question that shows engagement and a desire to understand the example better.\n4. **B's response [[00:31],[00:40]]**: B answers the specific question about Jonathan directly, explaining how his love for flying (free will) overcame his fear of rejection. This is a coherent and logical continuation.\n5. **A's next question [[00:39],[00:49]]**: A transitions the conversation to the second character, Santiago, building on the established theme. This is a logical progression.\n6. **B's response [[00:50],[00:58]]**: B provides the requested example for Santiago, staying on topic.\n7. **A's comparative question [[00:57],[01:07]]**: A asks to compare the level of fear between the two characters. This is an excellent, analytical question that deepens the conversation while remaining perfectly on topic.\n8. **B's response [[01:07],[01:18]]**: B provides a thoughtful, comparative answer, acknowledging the differences in their fears.\n9. **A's final question [[01:17],[01:24]]**: A asks for a real-world application of the lessons learned. This is a natural and relevant way to conclude the discussion.\n10. **B's final response [[01:25],[01:40]]**: B provides a concise and inspiring summary that directly answers A's question.\n\nOverall, the dialogue is exceptionally coherent. Each response is directly relevant to the previous turn, and the topic is developed logically from specific examples to comparison and finally to real-world application.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, specifically looking for extended overlaps and long pauses.\n\n1. **Pauses**:\n * Between A [[00:12]] and B [[00:12]]: No pause.\n * Between B [[00:22]] and A [[00:22]]: No pause.\n * Between A [[00:31]] and B [[00:31]]: No pause.\n * Between A [[00:49]] and B [[00:50]]: 1-second pause. This is a natural, brief pause between turns.\n * Between A [[01:07]] and B [[01:07]]: No pause.\n * Between A [[01:24]] and B [[01:25]]: 1-second pause. Also a natural, brief pause.\n There are no prolonged or awkward pauses in the conversation. The flow is smooth.\n\n2. **Overlaps**:\n * The transcript shows many short, single-word utterances from speaker B (e.g., \"Really.\", \"Um.\", \"I see.\", \"Uh.\") that are timestamped within B's main speaking turn. These are not true overlaps between speakers but rather filler words or affirmations that are part of B's own speech. They do not disrupt the flow.\n * A [[00:39],[00:49]] overlaps with B [[00:31],[00:40]] by one second. A begins speaking just as B is finishing their sentence.\n * A [[00:57],[01:07]] overlaps with B [[00:50],[00:58]] by one second.\n * A [[01:17],[01:24]] overlaps with B [[01:07],[01:18]] by one second.\n These are all very brief (1-second) overlaps where the next speaker starts slightly before the current one has completely finished. This is characteristic of a highly engaged and natural conversation and is not considered a fluency issue. There are no extended, disruptive overlaps where both speakers talk over each other for a significant duration.\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent, with a natural rhythm, no awkward silences, and only minor, engagement-signaling overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/81",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:08]] A: Could you tell me more about Halley's Comet and when we might see it again? I'm really curious about its orbit and how close it gets to Earth during its visits.\n[[00:09],[00:18]] B: Halley's Comet is famous for appearing roughly every 76 years. It was last seen in 1986, and scientists predict it will\n[[00:12],[00:12]] B: Really.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Really.\n[[00:17],[00:26]] A: What made the 1910 pass of Halley's Comet so special, and why were people so worried about it back then? I'd love to hear more details about that event.\n[[00:27],[00:44]] B: In 1910, Earth passed right through the comet's tail, which was a very rare event. Newspapers spread wild stories, making people fear poisonous gases or even a collision. But nothing bad happened—it was just a spectacular sight in the sky!\n[[00:32],[00:33]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:34],[00:35]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] B: Mm hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue based on Response Relevance.\n\n1. **A's first turn to B's first turn:** Speaker A asks for general information about Halley's Comet, its next appearance, and its orbit. Speaker B responds directly by explaining its 76-year cycle and its last appearance, and begins to talk about its next one. This response is perfectly relevant and coherent.\n2. **A's second turn to B's second turn:** Speaker A asks a specific follow-up question about the 1910 pass. Speaker B provides a detailed and relevant answer, explaining why the event was special (Earth passing through the tail) and why people were worried (sensationalized news). This demonstrates excellent topic coherence.\n\nThe dialogue flows logically, with each response directly and effectively addressing the preceding question. The topic is consistently maintained.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue based on Interactional Fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:**\n * Between A's first turn (`[00:08]`) and B's first turn (`[00:09]`), there is a 1-second pause. This is a natural and acceptable gap.\n * Between A's second turn (`[00:26]`) and B's second turn (`[00:27]`), there is another 1-second pause. This is also perfectly normal.\n * There are no prolonged, disruptive pauses.\n\n2. **Overlaps:**\n * There is a minor overlap between B's first turn (`[00:18]`) and A's second turn (`[00:17]`). Speaker A begins asking the next question just as B is finishing their sentence. This 1-second overlap is brief and typical of an engaged conversation, not a disruptive interruption.\n * The interjections from B within their own speech (e.g., `[00:12] B: Really.`, `[00:32] B: Mhm.`) are unusual but do not disrupt the turn-taking flow between the two speakers. They are very brief and do not constitute a harmful overlap.\n\nThe interaction flows smoothly with natural turn-taking and no significant fluency issues.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/82",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: That story about Katherine and Robert was really touching. Could you tell me more about how they managed to blend their different lifestyles when they moved in together? I'm curious about the specific compromises they made.\n[[00:12],[00:23]] B: Moving in was tricky at first since they had such different habits. Katherine liked everything neat and organized, while Robert was more relaxed about\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:22],[00:32]] A: That sounds like they found some good solutions. What about their social lives? Did they have trouble introducing each other to friends and family since they met later in life?\n[[00:33],[00:54]] B: At first, some friends were surprised since neither had been in serious relationships before. Katherine's coworkers couldn't believe she was dating after focusing on work for so long. But when people saw how happy they were together, everyone warmed up. They hosted small dinners to introduce their friend groups gradually, which helped everyone feel comfortable.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] B: I see.\n[[00:42],[00:42]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:44],[00:44]] B: Uh huh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B directly answers Speaker A's initial question about how Katherine and Robert blended their lifestyles, providing a specific example of their different approaches to tidiness. Speaker A then acknowledges this answer and logically transitions to a new, related question about their social lives. Speaker B again provides a detailed and relevant response, explaining the initial reactions of friends and the specific strategy (hosting small dinners) the couple used to integrate their social circles. The conversation is coherent, on-topic, and flows logically from one point to the next.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth and natural. The pauses between speaker turns are very short (e.g., one second between A's first turn ending at [00:11] and B's turn starting at [00:12]), which is typical for an engaged conversation. There are no prolonged or awkward silences. There is a very brief, one-second overlap where A begins speaking at [00:22] just as B is finishing at [00:23]. This type of brief overlap is common and natural in conversation and does not hinder communication. The other short utterances from B (e.g., \"Yeah, yeah,\" \"I see\") occur during B's own speaking turns and act as fillers rather than disruptive overlaps with speaker A. Overall, the flow is seamless.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/82",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:12]] A: That backstory makes the tale even more intriguing! Could you tell me more about the group of teenagers and how they first discovered the ghost's presence? What made them decide to investigate further?\n[[00:13],[00:45]] B: The group consisted of five friends who stayed late after school for a project. They were in the old library when strange things started happening—books flying off shelves, whispers in empty halls, and cold spots. The final clue was an old yearbook that opened by itself to Anderson's photo, his eyes bleeding black ink. They realized this wasn't just a rumor when one of them, Jake,\n[[00:22],[00:24]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] B: Really.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] B: Mm.\n[[00:44],[00:55]] A: That sounds terrifying! What were some of the specific supernatural events the ghost used to torment the students? And how did the group's friendship help them face these horrors together?\n[[00:56],[01:34]] B: Anderson's hauntings grew worse over time—lockers slamming shut on their own, shadowy figures in the halls, and nightmares that felt too real. The worst was when he manipulated reality, making them relive his bullying through visions. But their friendship kept them strong. \n\nThey split tasks based on strengths—research, bravery, logic—and trusted each other when doubt crept in. When one faltered, the others lifted them up. That bond became their shield against Anderson's mind games. Without it, they would've fallen apart.\n[[01:07],[01:08]] B: Sure.\n[[01:09],[01:10]] B: Um.\n[[01:11],[01:12]] B: That's cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B's first response [[00:13],[00:45]] directly addresses Speaker A's questions [[00:00],[00:12]] about how the teenagers discovered the ghost and why they decided to investigate. Speaker B provides a clear narrative, explaining the initial strange events and the specific clue (the yearbook) that prompted the investigation. Speaker A's follow-up question [[00:44],[00:55]] is a logical continuation, asking for more detail about the hauntings and the group's dynamics. Speaker B's second response [[00:56],[01:34]] again answers both parts of the question, describing specific supernatural events and explaining how the friends' bond helped them. The conversation maintains perfect topic coherence and logical consistency throughout.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The pauses between speaker turns are consistently brief and natural (e.g., the one-second pause between [00:12] and [00:13]). There is a minor, one-second overlap where Speaker A begins at [00:44] just before Speaker B finishes at [00:45]. This type of brief overlap is very common in natural conversation and indicates engagement rather than a harmful interruption. The other transcribed utterances from Speaker B (e.g., \"Yeah, yeah,\" \"Sure\") occur during their own speaking turn and function as filler words, not as disruptive overlaps with Speaker A. There are no extended, harmful overlaps or long, awkward pauses.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/82",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:00]] A: What's this?\n[[00:01],[00:03]] B: It's a drawing of the house we're going to buy.\n[[00:03],[00:05]] A: Where did you get it?\n[[00:05],[00:07]] B: I had the realtor send it to us.\n[[00:08],[00:11]] A: Why?\n[[00:10],[00:14]] B: Oh, I just thought it would be helpful to have a visual. Are you worried about something specific?\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:14],[00:17]] A: But we haven't even seen the house yet.\n[[00:17],[00:21]] B: I know, but I wanted to get an idea of what it looks like.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates the conversation with a question (\"What's this?\"), and Speaker B provides a direct and relevant answer. The subsequent questions from A (\"Where did you get it?\", \"Why?\") are logically answered by B. A then raises a valid, on-topic concern (\"But we haven't even seen the house yet.\"), which B acknowledges and addresses appropriately (\"I know, but I wanted to get an idea of what it looks like.\"). The conversation progresses naturally and stays on the topic of the house drawing. The two short, isolated utterances from B (\"That's cool.\" and \"Hmm.\") are slightly odd in their placement but do not disrupt the overall coherence and relevance of the main interaction between A and B.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency of the dialogue is excellent.\n- **Pauses:** There are no prolonged pauses between turns. The transitions are quick and natural, with speakers often starting immediately after the other finishes (e.g., [[00:03],[00:05]] and [[00:05],[00:07]]). The 1-second gaps between other turns are normal conversational pauses.\n- **Overlaps:** There is one minor overlap where B begins to answer at [00:10] before A finishes their one-word question \"Why?\" at [00:11]. This type of brief overlap, especially on short, predictable questions, is very common in natural conversation and does not harm fluency. The other two overlaps noted in the transcript are from Speaker B overlapping with their own speech, which are likely transcription artifacts or self-corrections/interjections that do not disrupt the turn-taking flow between the two participants. The core interaction remains smooth and uninterrupted.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/83",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:12]] A: Could you explain more about how the colors in the \"Ascension\" sculpture create that sense of movement? I'm particularly curious about how specific shades affect our perception when we look at art pieces like this.\n[[00:12],[00:18]] B: The sculpture starts with a light blue at the bottom, like shallow water on a sunny day. Then as\n[[00:14],[00:16]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:18],[00:27]] A: That's really interesting! But could you tell me more about why our brains interpret those color changes as movement? What's the psychology behind that visual effect?\n[[00:28],[00:40]] B: Our brains naturally associate darker colors with depth and distance, while lighter tones seem closer. So when colors gradually shift like in\n[[00:33],[00:34]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:38],[00:50]] A: That makes sense! Now about the \"Harvest in the Fields\" piece, how exactly did those warm autumn colors make viewers feel immersed in the scene? I'd love to understand the color choices better.\n[[00:50],[01:00]] B: The artist used golden yellows that instantly make you think of sunlight on wheat fields. Then those rich orange tones feel\n[[00:53],[00:54]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:55],[00:56]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:59],[01:07]] A: Wait, before you continue - why do warm colors like those create such strong emotional responses compared to cooler colors in artwork?\n[[01:08],[01:19]] B: Great question! Warm colors trigger memories and feelings associated with comfort - like sunshine, fireplaces, or ripe fruit. They stimulate us more\n[[01:13],[01:14]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[01:18],[01:27]] A: So in \"Harvest in the Fields,\" was the artist specifically trying to evoke memories of autumn experiences through those color choices?\n[[01:27],[01:40]] B: Exactly! Every warm tone was carefully selected to trigger personal autumn memories - whether it's harvest time, falling leaves, or the golden light of shorter days. That's why viewers feel so connected to the scene.\n[[01:31],[01:32]] B: Um.\n[[01:33],[01:34]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[01:35],[01:35]] B: I see.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue based on **Response Relevance** and **Interactional Fluency**.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n1. **A's first question ([[00:00],[00:12]])**: Asks how colors in \"Ascension\" create a sense of movement.\n2. **B's first response ([[00:12],[00:18]])**: Starts explaining the color gradient from light blue at the bottom. This is a direct and relevant answer.\n3. **A's second question ([[00:18],[00:27]])**: Asks for the psychological reason behind this perception of movement. This is a logical and coherent follow-up question, seeking deeper understanding.\n4. **B's second response ([[00:28],[00:40]])**: Explains the brain's association of color shades with depth and distance. This directly answers the specific psychological question.\n5. **A's third question ([[00:38],[00:50]])**: Shifts the topic to a new artwork, \"Harvest in the Fields,\" and asks how its warm colors create immersion. The topic shift is clear and maintains the overall theme of color in art.\n6. **B's third response ([[00:50],[01:00]])**: Begins to explain the use of golden yellows and oranges, which is directly relevant to A's question about warm colors.\n7. **A's fourth question ([[00:59],[01:07]])**: Interrupts to ask a more general question about why warm colors evoke strong emotional responses. This is a relevant, clarifying question that drills down into the core of B's explanation.\n8. **B's fourth response ([[01:08],[01:19]])**: Provides a general explanation, linking warm colors to memories of comfort like sunshine and fireplaces. This is a perfect answer to A's question.\n9. **A's fifth question ([[01:18],[01:27]])**: Connects B's general explanation back to the specific artwork, asking if the artist's intent was to evoke autumn memories. This demonstrates active listening and synthesizes the previous points.\n10. **B's fifth response ([[01:27],[01:40]])**: Confirms A's synthesis, stating that the colors were chosen to trigger personal memories. This provides a satisfying conclusion to the line of questioning.\n\nThe dialogue is highly coherent and logically consistent. Each turn builds upon the last, creating a rich and insightful conversation. The responses are always relevant to the questions asked.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue's **Interactional Fluency**, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Analysis of Pauses:**\n- **Turn 2 (B starts at [00:12])**: B responds immediately after A finishes. No pause.\n- **Turn 3 (A starts at [00:18])**: A responds immediately after B finishes. No pause.\n- **Turn 4 (B starts at [00:28])**: A 1-second gap between A finishing and B starting. This is a natural, brief pause for thought.\n- **Turn 5 (A starts at [00:38])**: A starts talking as B is finishing (slight overlap). No pause.\n- **Turn 6 (B starts at [00:50])**: B responds immediately. No pause.\n- **Turn 7 (A starts at [00:59])**: A interrupts B. No pause.\n- **Turn 8 (B starts at [01:08])**: A 1-second gap. Natural and acceptable.\n- **Turn 9 (A starts at [01:18])**: A starts talking as B is finishing. No pause.\n- **Turn 10 (B starts at [01:27])**: B responds immediately. No pause.\nThere are no prolonged or awkward pauses between speaker turns.\n\n**Analysis of Overlaps:**\n- The timestamps like `[[00:14],[00:16]] B: Ummm.` and `[[00:33],[00:34]] B: Mm hmm.` occur *during* speaker B's own turn. These are not overlaps between speakers but natural filler words and self-affirmations, which enhance fluency rather than detract from it.\n- `[[00:59],[01:07]] A` starts speaking at `00:59`, while `[[00:50],[01:00]] B` is speaking until `01:00`. This is a brief, one-second overlap where A intentionally interrupts (\"Wait, before you continue...\") to ask a clarifying question. This is a natural and effective conversational move, not a harmful overlap.\n- `[[01:18],[01:27]] A` starts at `01:18` while `[[01:08],[01:19]] B` finishes at `01:19`. This is another very brief, one-second overlap, typical of natural turn-taking where one speaker begins just as the other is concluding their final word.\n\nThe interaction is fluid and dynamic. The short overlaps function as natural interruptions and backchanneling, which is characteristic of an engaging conversation. There are no extended, competitive overlaps that disrupt the flow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/83",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:15]] A: Could you explain how forgiveness benefits our personal relationships and mental health? I'd love to hear specific examples and research that show why letting go of grudges helps us grow closer to others and feel better emotionally.\n[[00:16],[00:27]] B: Forgiveness definitely helps relationships grow stronger. Studies show it builds trust and makes people feel closer. For example, research\n[[00:19],[00:21]] B: I see.\n[[00:22],[00:23]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:26],[00:39]] A: That's really interesting! Could you also tell me how forgiveness affects our physical health? I'm curious if there's any connection between letting go of anger and feeling better physically, not just emotionally.\n[[00:40],[01:00]] B: Yes, forgiveness actually improves physical health too. Studies link holding grudges to higher stress and even heart risks. People who forgive tend to have lower blood pressure and less anxiety. Letting go of anger helps our bodies relax and heal, which is good for overall well-being.\n[[00:46],[00:48]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:48],[00:50]] B: I see.\n[[00:51],[00:51]] B: Uh huh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A begins by asking a detailed question about the benefits of forgiveness on personal relationships and mental health. Speaker B's response is directly relevant, addressing the impact on relationships, trust, and mentioning the research as requested. Speaker A's second turn is a logical follow-up, expanding the topic from mental to physical health. Speaker B's second response directly and thoroughly answers this new question, explaining the physiological benefits of forgiveness, such as lower blood pressure and reduced stress. The conversation is coherent, and each turn logically builds upon the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no prolonged pauses between turns that would indicate a breakdown in communication; the pauses are brief and natural (e.g., one second between [00:15] and [00:16]). The overlaps present are brief and appear to be transcription errors. For instance, the utterances \"I see,\" \"Yeah, yeah,\" \"Mhm,\" and \"Uh huh\" attributed to speaker B while B is in the middle of a longer speaking turn ([00:16]-[00:27] and [00:40]-[01:00]) are almost certainly backchannels from speaker A, indicating active listening. These types of short, affirming overlaps are characteristic of a natural and engaging conversation, not a sign of disruptive interruption. The one-second overlap at [00:26] is also minor and represents a natural transition. Overall, the flow is smooth and conversational.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/85",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:08]] A: I'm sorry, I know I've been messing up a lot lately. It's just that this job is really important to me and I don't want to\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: Uh.\n[[00:04],[00:05]] A: Cool.\n[[00:07],[00:14]] B: I understand, but have you thought about what specifically has been causing these mistakes? It might help us address the root cause.\n[[00:09],[00:09]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:11],[00:11]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:15],[00:29]] A: I think it's a mix of pressure and trying to juggle too many things at once. I really want to do well, which is why I'm committed to making things right and ensuring that I can meet everyone's expectations.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] A: Really.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] A: Right.\n[[00:23],[00:24]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:29],[00:36]] B: That's a good start. Just remember, it's important to focus on one thing at a time. Let's start with today then.\n[[00:32],[00:33]] B: I see.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A begins by apologizing and expressing their commitment, setting a clear context. Speaker B's response is directly relevant, showing understanding and then asking a constructive question to identify the root cause of the issues. Speaker A answers this question directly, explaining the pressure they feel. Speaker B then provides relevant advice and a concrete next step. The conversation flows logically, with each turn building upon the previous one. The topic is coherent throughout, focusing on resolving A's performance issues in a supportive manner.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There is a very brief, one-second overlap between [00:07] and [00:08] where B begins speaking just as A is finishing their sentence. This type of overlap is natural in conversation and indicates active listening and engagement, rather than a disruption. There are no prolonged or awkward pauses between turns, leading to a smooth and natural conversational flow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/85",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:12]] A: I'm really interested in pairing my new indigo skinny jeans with different shoes, but could you give me more details about which specific brands or styles of white sneakers would work best for a casual look?\n[[00:12],[00:23]] B: Great question! Classic white sneakers like Adidas Stan Smiths or Converse Chuck Taylors always look sharp with skinny jeans. If you\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Uh.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Really.\n[[00:22],[00:35]] A: That's helpful, but what about colors other than white for sneakers? I sometimes worry white will get dirty too fast, so are there other neutral shades that would still look stylish with indigo jeans?\n[[00:35],[00:45]] B: Absolutely! Light gray or cream sneakers work just as well as white. You could even try pale pink or soft\n[[00:38],[00:39]] B: Cool.\n[[00:40],[00:42]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:44],[00:54]] A: Speaking of colors, could you suggest some top and jacket combinations that would complement both the jeans and lighter shoes for a put-together weekend look?\n[[00:54],[01:05]] B: For weekends, pair your jeans with a light denim jacket and a striped Breton top—it’s timeless. Or try an oversized beige trench\n[[00:57],[00:58]] B: Right.\n[[00:59],[01:00]] B: Right.\n[[01:04],[01:13]] A: Wait, before we move on, could you clarify whether ankle boots should have a heel or stay flat when wearing them with skinny jeans? I don’t want my legs to look stumpy.\n[[01:14],[01:25]] B: Good point! A small block heel—around one to two inches—gives a flattering lift without sacrificing comfort. Flat ankle boots\n[[01:17],[01:18]] B: I see.\n[[01:19],[01:20]] B: Uh.\n[[01:24],[01:33]] A: Got it! Now for dressier occasions, you mentioned heeled mules earlier—what heel height would you recommend to keep them comfortable for all-day wear while still looking polished?\n[[01:34],[01:49]] B: Aim for a mid-height heel, around two to three inches. Chunky heels or wedge mules are especially comfy for all-day wear. Pointed toes elongate your legs, making them perfect with skinny jeans. Just avoid anything too wobbly!\n[[01:38],[01:39]] B: I see.\n[[01:40],[01:41]] B: Okay,okay.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A initiates a clear topic: what shoes and outfits to pair with indigo skinny jeans. Speaker B consistently provides direct and relevant answers to each of Speaker A's questions. The conversation progresses logically from casual white sneakers, to other sneaker colors, to tops and jackets, and then back to clarifying details about specific shoe types like ankle boots and mules. Each response from B directly addresses the preceding question from A, maintaining perfect topic coherence throughout the interaction.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no prolonged pauses between turns; the transitions are either immediate or have a very brief, natural one-second gap. The overlaps that do occur are minimal, lasting only about one second as one speaker begins just before the other has completely finished. This type of brief overlap is characteristic of an engaged and natural conversation and is not disruptive. The interjections from Speaker B (e.g., \"Right,\" \"I see,\" \"Uh\") are brief fillers within their own turn and do not interrupt the flow of the conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/85",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: Could you make the lyrics even darker and more vivid to really capture that sense of doom and despair? I want imagery that feels like a slow descent into eternal darkness.\n[[00:12],[00:39]] B: Verse 1: The earth cracks beneath my feet as shadows swallow the light Rust-colored rivers of regret flow through this endless night Each breath feels like drowning in an ocean of decay While ghostly whispers call my name, begging me to stay Chorus: The void inside me grows with every hollow beat No stars above, just endless black where hope used to meet I\n[[00:20],[00:21]] B: Um.\n[[00:22],[00:23]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:23],[00:25]] B: Cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user A asks for song lyrics with a \"darker and more vivid\" tone, focusing on \"doom and despair\" and a \"descent into eternal darkness.\" Speaker B provides lyrics that directly address this request. The imagery used, such as \"shadows swallow the light,\" \"rust-colored rivers of regret,\" and \"endless black where hope used to meet,\" perfectly aligns with the user's prompt. The response is highly relevant, coherent, and logically consistent with the request.\n\n\n\nThe transition between speaker turns is smooth, with only a natural one-second pause between speaker A ending and speaker B beginning. The transcript notes three very brief self-overlaps from speaker B (\"Um,\" \"Mm hmm,\" \"Cool\") during their main utterance. These are short, common filler words or hesitations that represent minor disfluencies typical of natural speech. They are not extended or prolonged, and they do not disrupt the overall flow or comprehensibility of the conversation. Therefore, the interactional fluency is natural and appropriate.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/86",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: I really like how you incorporated the sporty feel into the slogan! Could you suggest a few more variations that keep the energy and fitness theme but make it sound even more powerful and exciting?\n[[00:13],[00:24]] B: Absolutely! Here are some punchy options for your energy drink. \"Crush your limits with (Brand Name) - unstoppable energy!\" Or\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Sure.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Um.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Cool.\n[[00:23],[00:35]] A: Those sound amazing! The second one really stands out to me. Do you think we could tweak it slightly to appeal to both athletes and everyday fitness enthusiasts who need that extra boost?\n[[00:36],[00:51]] B: Yes, we can make it more inclusive while keeping the power. Try this: \"Fuel for every victory - (Brand Name) powers athletes and go-getters alike!\" It keeps the energy but welcomes all active people who need that boost to perform their best.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Cool.\n[[00:46],[00:46]] B: Right.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user, A, and the assistant, B, maintain a perfectly coherent and logical conversation. A starts by asking for variations on a slogan with specific criteria (sporty, energetic, powerful). B directly addresses this by providing relevant examples. A then provides specific feedback on one of the suggestions and asks for a targeted tweak to make it more inclusive. B understands this new requirement perfectly and provides a revised slogan along with a justification for why it works. The dialogue shows a clear, logical progression of ideas with each response being directly relevant to the previous turn.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There is a normal 2-second pause between the first turn from A and the response from B. There is a very brief, 1-second overlap ([[00:23],[00:24]]) where A begins to respond enthusiastically just as B is finishing their sentence. This is a natural feature of an engaged conversation and is not disruptive. The other short utterances from B ([[00:16]-[00:20]] and [[00:41]-[00:46]]) occur within B's own speaking turns, functioning as minor fillers rather than interruptions of A. There are no prolonged pauses or disruptive overlaps, resulting in a smooth and natural conversational flow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/86",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:12]] A: I really enjoyed learning about Renaissance and Pop Art. Could you tell me more about how these two styles reflected their social and political times? I'm especially curious about how they influenced society back then.\n[[00:13],[00:25]] B: Absolutely! Renaissance art emerged during Europe's rebirth of classical ideas. It focused on humanism, realism, and celebrating human potential. This matched\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:24],[00:38]] A: That's fascinating! Could you give me some specific examples of famous Renaissance artworks and explain their deeper meanings? I'd love to understand the symbolism better since these paintings seem so rich with hidden messages.\n[[00:39],[01:01]] B: Sure! Leonardo's Last Supper shows Christ's apostles reacting to betrayal, revealing human emotions. Botticelli's Birth of Venus mixes mythology with Christian symbols like pearls representing purity. Bosch's Garden of Earthly Delights warns against sin through vivid imagery. Each painting reflects Renaissance values in unique ways.\n[[00:46],[00:47]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:47],[00:49]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:49],[00:51]] B: Cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B's first response directly addresses the first part of Speaker A's question about Renaissance art, explaining its connection to the social context of the time (rebirth of classical ideas, humanism). When Speaker A follows up with a more specific question requesting examples and their meanings, Speaker B provides a detailed and highly relevant answer, citing specific artworks (\"Last Supper,\" \"Birth of Venus,\" \"Garden of Earthly Delights\") and explaining their symbolism and connection to Renaissance values. The conversation flows logically and coherently, with each turn building upon the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no prolonged pauses between turns; the gaps are brief and natural (e.g., one second between 00:12 and 00:13). There is one minor overlap where Speaker A begins speaking at [00:24] just as Speaker B is finishing their sentence at [00:25]. This is a very brief, one-second overlap that is common in natural, engaged conversation and is not disruptive. The short interjections (\"Mm hmm,\" \"Mhm,\" \"Cool\") attributed to B during their own long utterance are unusual but do not interrupt the flow of the conversation or overlap with the other speaker. They function more like self-talk or thinking-aloud sounds rather than harmful interruptions. Overall, the turn-taking is smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/86",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:08]] A: That wreath idea sounds great, but could you explain exactly how to prepare the fruits and veggies so they stay fresh looking throughout my whole party?\n[[00:08],[00:16]] B: Sure thing! For fruits like apples and pears, give them a quick lemon juice bath to prevent browning. For veggies,\n[[00:12],[00:14]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:16],[00:25]] A: Wait, before you continue, how long before the party should I actually assemble the wreath? I want it to look perfect but not wilt before guests arrive.\n[[00:25],[00:33]] B: Good question! Assemble it no more than 4 hours before your event. Keep it refrigerated until about an hour before serving.\n[[00:28],[00:30]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:32],[00:40]] A: That makes sense, but what about the foam base you mentioned earlier? Should I soak it in water or use something else to keep everything fresh?\n[[00:40],[00:50]] B: Absolutely soak the foam first! Use a floral foam ring and soak it in water with a little vinegar for about 30 minutes.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:45],[00:46]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:49],[00:57]] A: While we're talking about preparation, could you suggest some specific fruits and veggies that work best together color-wise for a really striking holiday look?\n[[00:57],[01:08]] B: For a gorgeous holiday palette, try red apples with dark green kale, orange persimmons, purple grapes, and white baby turnips. The\n[[01:01],[01:01]] B: Uh.\n[[01:02],[01:04]] B: Uh huh.\n[[01:07],[01:14]] A: One last thing - what's the best way to actually attach all these items to the wreath so they stay put but still look natural?\n[[01:15],[01:30]] B: Use floral picks or small wooden skewers for heavier items. For lighter pieces, just push them gently into the foam. Tuck some fresh rosemary sprigs around to hide any mechanics while adding wonderful fragrance too!\n[[01:19],[01:21]] B: Really.\n[[01:22],[01:23]] B: I see.\n[[01:24],[01:25]] B: Right.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A asks a series of specific, clarifying questions about how to make a fruit and vegetable wreath for a party. Speaker B consistently provides direct, relevant, and helpful answers to each question. For example, when A asks about keeping fruits fresh ([00:00]), B immediately suggests a lemon juice bath ([00:08]). When A interrupts to ask about assembly timing ([00:16]), B answers that question directly ([00:25]). The conversation progresses logically from one sub-topic to the next (preparation, timing, base, color combinations, attachment method) while staying focused on the main goal. The answers are coherent and build upon the context of the conversation.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no prolonged or awkward pauses between turns; the conversation flows smoothly and naturally. For instance, there is only a one-second pause between A's turn ending at [01:14] and B's turn beginning at [01:15]. Other turn transitions are immediate or have a slight, natural overlap (e.g., A starting at [00:32] just before B finishes at [00:33]), which is typical of an engaged conversation. The overlaps present are either functional interruptions (A clarifying a point at [00:16]) or short backchannels (e.g., \"Yeah, yeah\" at [00:43]) that signal active listening without disrupting the speaker. The transcript does contain some oddities where B seems to be backchanneling during its own turn (e.g., at [00:12]), but these are most likely transcription artifacts rather than actual fluency problems in the conversation itself. Overall, the pacing is very natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/87",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:09]] A: That makes sense about extreme weather, but could you tell me more specifically which regions are most vulnerable to these climate impacts on their food production right now?\n[[00:10],[00:20]] B: Sure! Right now, sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia are especially vulnerable because they rely heavily on rain-fed agriculture. Many\n[[00:13],[00:15]] B: Uh.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Mm.\n[[00:19],[00:28]] A: I see, but what about other parts of the world? Are there any surprising places where food security might be at risk that people don’t usually talk about?\n[[00:28],[00:39]] B: Actually, even developed regions like parts of Europe and North America face risks. Heatwaves and unpredictable rainfall can hurt crop yields\n[[00:32],[00:32]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:34],[00:34]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:38],[00:46]] A: That’s concerning—so what can farmers do to adapt to these changes, especially in places where resources are limited?\n[[00:46],[00:56]] B: Farmers can switch to more drought-resistant crops or use techniques like rainwater harvesting. Small-scale solutions, like better soil management,\n[[00:49],[00:50]] B: Um.\n[[00:51],[00:52]] B: Um.\n[[00:55],[01:02]] A: Got it—but what about long-term solutions? Are there bigger changes needed beyond just what farmers can do on their own?\n[[01:02],[01:17]] B: Absolutely! We need better infrastructure, like irrigation systems, and policies that support sustainable farming. Global cooperation is key to helping vulnerable regions adapt while reducing emissions to slow climate change.\n[[01:06],[01:07]] B: Um.\n[[01:08],[01:09]] B: Really.\n[[01:11],[01:11]] B: Hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains a clear and logical progression. Speaker A initiates the conversation by asking about specific regions vulnerable to climate impacts on food production. Speaker B responds directly by naming sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Speaker A then broadens the question to include less-obvious regions, and Speaker B appropriately answers by mentioning developed areas like Europe and North America. The conversation continues this logical Q&A pattern, moving from problems (vulnerable regions) to solutions for farmers, and then to broader, long-term solutions. Each response is directly relevant to the preceding question, demonstrating strong topic coherence and logical consistency throughout the interaction.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns. The turn-taking is smooth and natural. For instance, at [[00:28]], speaker B begins immediately as speaker A finishes, indicating attentive listening. The few overlaps that occur are very brief (e.g., [[00:19],[00:20]] and [[00:38],[00:39]]) and are characteristic of natural, engaged conversation where one speaker anticipates the end of the other's turn. They are not disruptive interruptions. The small hesitations and fillers from speaker B (e.g., \"Uh,\" \"Um,\" \"Hmm\") are typical of spontaneous speech and do not detract from the overall flow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/87",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: Hey, I'm just going to head out. I don't want to see you before I go.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Um.\n[[00:04],[00:06]] B: What? Why not?\n[[00:06],[00:11]] A: Because I know if I see you, I'll start crying and won't be able to\n[[00:08],[00:09]] A: Uh.\n[[00:10],[00:16]] B: Wait, are you sure this is what you want? I mean, leaving everything behind can be really tough.\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: Really.\n[[00:16],[00:23]] A: And I'm really excited to finally be leaving and starting fresh. Oh, Kaila. Come here. *Hugs Kaila*\n[[00:19],[00:20]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:24],[00:25]] B: *Cries*\n[[00:25],[00:31]] A: It's going to be okay. We're always going to be friends, no matter what happens or where we end up.\n[[00:28],[00:28]] A: Um.\n[[00:32],[00:38]] B: Sorry, I just can't help but feel worried. What if things don't turn out the way you hope?\n[[00:34],[00:35]] B: Um.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants an evaluation of the dialogue's response relevance.\n\n1. **A's opening statement [[00:00],[00:03]]**: A states they are leaving and don't want a face-to-face goodbye. This clearly sets the topic and emotional context.\n2. **B's response [[00:04],[00:06]]**: \"What? Why not?\" is a direct, logical, and expected question following A's statement.\n3. **A's explanation [[00:06],[00:11]]**: A explains the reason is to avoid crying, which is a coherent and relevant answer to B's question.\n4. **B's follow-up [[00:10],[00:16]]**: B expresses concern about A's decision to leave. This broadens the topic from the immediate goodbye to the larger life choice, which is a natural progression in such an emotional conversation. It remains highly relevant.\n5. **A's response [[00:16],[00:23]]**: A counters B's concern with excitement for a fresh start and then initiates a hug. This is a coherent response, showing resolve while also acknowledging the emotional connection.\n6. **B's reaction [[00:24],[00:25]]**: B crying is a non-verbal but completely relevant emotional response to the hug and the situation.\n7. **A's reassurance [[00:25],[00:31]]**: A comforts B, which is a logical and appropriate reaction to B's tears.\n8. **B's final statement [[00:32],[00:38]]**: B continues to express worry, which is consistent with their character and the conversation's theme.\n\nOverall, the dialogue is thematically coherent. Each turn is a logical and emotionally consistent response to the previous one, creating a very natural and believable interaction.\n\n\n\nThe user wants an evaluation of the dialogue's interactional fluency, focusing on overlaps and pauses.\n\n1. **Overlaps**:\n * There is a minor overlap between A's turn [[00:06],[00:11]] and B's turn [[00:10],[00:16]]. B begins speaking while A is finishing a sentence. In this emotional context, B's interruption (\"Wait, are you sure...\") feels like a natural, urgent interjection rather than a rude interruption. It is brief (about 1 second) and does not disrupt the flow.\n * Other sounds like \"Um\" and \"Mm hmm\" are brief and typical of natural speech, not problematic overlaps.\n\n2. **Pauses**:\n * There are no significant or awkwardly long pauses between turns.\n * The gap between B's turn ending at [00:06] and A's starting at [00:06] is non-existent.\n * The gap between A's turn ending at [00:11] and B's (which already started at [00:10]) is handled by the overlap.\n * The gap between B's turn ending at [00:25] and A's starting at [00:25] is non-existent.\n * The transition between A's turn ending at [00:31] and B's starting at [00:32] is smooth.\n\nThe conversation flows smoothly and naturally. The one noticeable overlap adds to the emotional realism of the scene rather than detracting from it. There are no harmful long pauses.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/87",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: Hello, welcome to my shop! What type of shoes are you looking for today?\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Um.\n[[00:04],[00:10]] B: I'm not really sure. I'll just take a look around and see if anything catches my\n[[00:07],[00:07]] B: Really.\n[[00:10],[00:18]] A: Actually, before you start browsing, do you have any specific occasions in mind? That might help narrow down your options.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] A: Really.\n[[00:19],[00:23]] B: Hmm, not really. I just want something that looks nice and is comfortable to wear.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:24],[00:32]] A: Okay, we have a lot of great options then! Let me show you some of our most popular designs that are both stylish and comfortable.\n[[00:28],[00:29]] A: Cool.\n[[00:32],[00:38]] B: Oh, before that, could you tell me if you have any shoes with extra arch support? Comfort is really key for me.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: Sure.\n[[00:39],[00:44]] A: Absolutely, we have a few styles with enhanced arch support. Let me bring those out for you to try.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] A: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation follows a logical and coherent path typical of a customer-shopkeeper interaction. Speaker A begins with a standard greeting and question. Speaker B provides a general response about browsing, which is natural. Speaker A then proactively tries to help by asking for more specific needs (\"occasions\"), which is a relevant and helpful follow-up. Speaker B clarifies their needs (\"looks nice and is comfortable\"). Acknowledging this, Speaker A offers to show relevant products. Speaker B then further refines their request to \"extra arch support,\" which is a logical continuation of their emphasis on comfort. Finally, Speaker A confirms they can meet this specific need. Every turn is a direct and logical response to the preceding one, and the topic remains consistently focused on finding suitable shoes.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a smooth and natural conversational rhythm. Turn-taking is immediate and seamless. While the transcript notes several single-word utterances (e.g., \"Really,\" \"Mm hmm,\" \"Cool\"), these are attributed to the speaker who is already talking. As such, they function as self-corrections, hesitations, or filler words within a single turn, rather than disruptive overlaps where one speaker interrupts the other. There are no instances of speakers talking over each other in a way that would hinder communication. The flow of the conversation is smooth and uninterrupted.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/87",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: I don't want to go with you.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] B: Why not?\n[[00:03],[00:08]] A: I don't trust you. You're always trying to control me and tell me what to\n[[00:04],[00:05]] A: Really.\n[[00:07],[00:12]] B: Kianna, we need to stick together. It's not safe out there for either of us.\n[[00:10],[00:10]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:13],[00:16]] A: I can take care of myself. I don't need your help.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] A: Really.\n[[00:16],[00:24]] B: Kianna, please. Just listen to reason for once in your life. We are stronger together and can face any challenges as a team.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Cool.\n[[00:20],[00:22]] B: I see.\n[[00:24],[00:29]] A: No! I'm done listening to you. I'm going my own way from now on.\n[[00:26],[00:26]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:29],[00:32]] B: Kianna, you can't just leave!\n[[00:33],[00:33]] A: Watch me.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue presents a coherent and logical argument between two speakers, A and B. Speaker A expresses a desire to leave, citing a lack of trust and feeling controlled. Speaker B tries to persuade A to stay, arguing for safety in numbers and teamwork. Each response is directly relevant to the preceding turn. For example, B's \"Why not?\" is a logical question to A's opening statement. A's explanation of mistrust is a direct answer to B's question. The conversation maintains a consistent topic and logical progression throughout, effectively portraying a conflict between the two characters.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good, reflecting a natural, albeit tense, conversation. There is a one-second pause between B's question and A's answer ([[00:02],[00:03]]), which is a normal conversational gap. There is a brief, one-second overlap between speaker A and B from [00:07] to [00:08] where B begins to speak before A has completely finished. In the context of a heated argument, this kind of brief interruption is natural and realistic. There are no prolonged, awkward pauses or extended, unintelligible overlaps that disrupt the conversational flow. The pace is appropriate for an argument.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/88",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: Could you explain how to write a simple Swift program that checks if a year is a leap year? I'd like to understand the logic behind it and see some example code with clear comments.\n[[00:12],[00:22]] B: Sure! Here's how a leap year check works in Swift. First, a year is a leap year if it's divisible by 4. But if it's a century year, it must\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: I see.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:21],[00:33]] A: That sounds helpful, but could you also explain why we need these specific conditions for determining leap years? What's the reasoning behind checking divisibility by 4 and 400?\n[[00:33],[00:56]] B: The rules exist because a solar year isn't exactly 365 days. It's about 365 days and 6 hours. Adding a day every 4 years accounts for those extra hours. But this overcorrects slightly, so we skip leap years on century years unless they're divisible by 400 to keep our calendar accurate.\n[[00:40],[00:41]] B: Really.\n[[00:42],[00:43]] B: Um.\n[[00:44],[00:45]] B: I see.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue based on Response Relevance.\n\n1. **A's first turn ([00:00]-[00:11]):** The user clearly asks for an explanation of the logic behind leap years and some example Swift code.\n2. **B's first turn ([00:12]-[00:22]):** The agent begins to explain the logic directly, addressing the first part of the user's request (\"a year is a leap year if it's divisible by 4...\"). This response is directly relevant.\n3. **A's second turn ([00:21]-[00:33]):** The user interrupts to ask a clarifying follow-up question about the *reasoning* behind the rules. This is a perfectly logical and coherent next step in the conversation, showing engagement and a desire for deeper understanding.\n4. **B's second turn ([00:33]-[00:56]):** The agent provides a clear and accurate explanation for the leap year rules, addressing the user's \"why\" question by explaining the discrepancy in the solar year. This response is highly relevant and logically consistent with the preceding question.\n\nThe conversation maintains a consistent topic, and the turns build logically on one another. The responses directly address the questions asked.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue based on Interactional Fluency, focusing on extended overlaps and long pauses.\n\n1. **Pauses:**\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's first turn ending at [00:11] and B's response starting at [00:12]. This is a normal, natural pause.\n * There is no pause between A's second turn ending at [00:33] and B's response starting at [00:33]. The transition is immediate.\n * There are no long pauses in the conversation.\n\n2. **Overlaps:**\n * There is a 1-second overlap between A's second turn ([00:21]-[00:33]) and B's first turn ([00:12]-[00:22]). A starts speaking while B is finishing their sentence. This is a brief and common type of interruption in natural conversation and is not disruptive.\n * The other listed utterances for B ([00:15]-[00:16], [00:17]-[00:18], [00:40]-[00:41], etc.) are self-overlaps where B is speaking over their own main sentence. While odd in a transcript, they represent very brief, 1-second interjections or filled pauses (\"um\") that do not disrupt the flow of interaction between the two speakers. They are not extended or harmful overlaps.\n\nConclusion: The interaction is fluid. There are no long pauses or disruptive, extended overlaps between the speakers. The turn-taking is smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/88",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Hey, what's up?\n[[00:01],[00:04]] B: Not much. Just doing my thing.\n[[00:04],[00:07]] A: Yeah, I hear you. So what's new with you?\n[[00:07],[00:11]] B: Nothing really. Just the same old, same\n[[00:08],[00:10]] B: Uh.\n[[00:10],[00:17]] A: Actually, speaking of the same old, have you thought about trying something different this weekend? Maybe something a bit more exciting?\n[[00:12],[00:13]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] A: Uh.\n[[00:17],[00:21]] B: I guess I am looking forward to the weekend. I might go out with some friends.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:22],[00:27]] A: That sounds like fun! What are you going to do? Maybe catch a movie or try a new restaurant?\n[[00:24],[00:25]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:28],[00:34]] B: Oh, before you ask, do you have any suggestions for a good movie? I haven't really kept up with the latest releases.\n[[00:31],[00:31]] B: Cool.\n[[00:34],[00:40]] A: Hmm, I think there's a new action movie that just came out. I haven't seen it yet, but it might be worth checking out.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] A: Okay,okay.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation begins with a standard greeting and progresses logically. Speaker A initiates a topic shift from B's \"same old\" routine to suggesting a more exciting weekend, which is a coherent and natural transition. B responds appropriately by mentioning potential plans with friends. The subsequent turns build directly on this topic, with A asking for details and B proactively asking for a movie recommendation, which ties back to A's earlier suggestion. Each speaker's contribution is directly relevant to the preceding turn, creating a cohesive and easy-to-follow conversation. There are no logical inconsistencies or abrupt topic changes.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very high. There are no long or awkward pauses between turns, indicating a smooth and natural conversational rhythm. The transition from one speaker to the next is seamless. For instance, the pause between B's turn ending at [00:21] and A's starting at [00:22] is only one second, which is typical for natural conversation. There is one minor overlap between [00:10] and [00:11], where A begins speaking as B is finishing a thought. However, this overlap is very brief (1 second) and is a common feature of natural, engaged dialogue rather than a disruptive interruption. It does not hinder understanding and contributes to the dynamic feel of the exchange. All other transcribed sounds are brief, intra-turn filler words (e.g., \"Mm hmm,\" \"Uh\") which are normal and do not negatively impact fluency.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/88",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: Could you suggest some specific volunteer opportunities that would be great for sports teams? I want something meaningful that will keep my athletes engaged while helping our community.\n[[00:11],[00:23]] B: Sure! Sports teams could coach youth clinics for underprivileged kids, organize equipment drives for schools in need, or host charity\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Really.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Uh.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:22],[00:33]] A: That sounds perfect! Could you explain how to organize a sport-a-thon fundraiser where we can raise money while playing our sport? I think my team would love this idea and it would help a good cause.\n[[00:34],[00:58]] B: A sport-a-thon works great! First, pick a sport-related challenge like shooting baskets or serving volleyballs. Athletes get sponsors to pledge money per successful attempt. Set up stations at your gym or field, track scores, and collect donations. You could even invite the community to watch and donate. It's fun, shows off skills, and raises money for charity.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] B: I see.\n[[00:43],[00:45]] B: Um.\n[[00:46],[00:47]] B: I see.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and coherence of the dialogue.\n- Speaker A starts by asking for specific volunteer ideas for a sports team.\n- Speaker B responds with three concrete and relevant suggestions: coaching youth clinics, organizing equipment drives, and hosting a charity event. This directly answers Speaker A's question.\n- Speaker A then follows up by asking for details on a specific type of fundraiser, a \"sport-a-thon,\" which is a logical next step in the conversation.\n- Speaker B provides a clear, step-by-step explanation of how to organize a sport-a-thon. This response is perfectly relevant to Speaker A's follow-up question.\nThe dialogue is logically consistent and stays on topic throughout. The responses are directly relevant to the questions asked.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n- The pause between A's first turn ([00:10]) and B's response ([00:11]) is only 1 second, which is a natural transition time.\n- The overlap between B's first turn ending ([00:23]) and A's second turn starting ([00:22]) is very brief (1 second). This is a common and natural occurrence in conversation, indicating engagement, and is not disruptive.\n- The pause between A's second turn ([00:33]) and B's final response ([00:34]) is also a natural 1 second.\n- The other listed timestamps for speaker B ([[00:15],[00:16]], [[00:17],[00:18]], etc.) are self-interruptions or fillers within their own turn, not overlaps with speaker A. These are common in natural speech.\nThere are no prolonged pauses or disruptive overlaps. The conversation flows smoothly.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/89",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hey, it's okay. What's wrong?\n[[00:03],[00:07]] B: I don't know. I just feel really sad all of a sudden.\n[[00:05],[00:06]] B: Sure.\n[[00:08],[00:15]] A: It's okay to feel sad sometimes. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with you. Everybody feels\n[[00:10],[00:11]] A: Right.\n[[00:12],[00:13]] A: I see.\n[[00:14],[00:18]] B: I hate feeling like this. I just want to be happy again.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Uh.\n[[00:19],[00:34]] A: Of course you do, sweetie. And you will be happy again, I promise. But it's okay to feel sad sometimes too. Just let yourself feel whatever you're feeling, and it will pass eventually. Sometimes, talking about it can help too.\n[[00:23],[00:24]] A: Cool.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] A: I see.\n[[00:28],[00:29]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] B: Why does it have to be so hard?\n[[00:39],[00:44]] A: I don't know, sweetie. But I'm here for you, no matter what. You're not alone in this.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] A: Uh huh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue's response relevance is excellent. The conversation maintains a clear and logical flow centered on Speaker B's feelings of sadness and Speaker A's attempts to provide comfort and support. Speaker A opens the conversation by noticing B is upset (\"What's wrong?\"). B's responses (\"I just feel really sad,\" \"I hate feeling like this\") are directly related to this topic. A's replies are consistently empathetic and relevant, offering validation (\"It's okay to feel sad sometimes\") and reassurance (\"I'm here for you, no matter what\"). Each turn builds logically on the previous one, creating a coherent and meaningful interaction. The minor, out-of-place utterance \"Sure\" by B at [00:05] is an anomaly but does not detract from the overall strong thematic coherence. The other interjections (\"Right,\" \"I see,\" \"Uh huh\") from Speaker A, while strangely placed within A's own sentences, function as affirmations that support the comforting tone of the dialogue, even if their timing is unnatural. The core content remains perfectly relevant.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency, specifically concerning the turn-taking between the two speakers, is excellent. There are no prolonged or awkward pauses between turns; the gaps are consistently short (1-2 seconds), which contributes to a natural conversational rhythm. Furthermore, there are no disruptive, extended overlaps where both speakers talk over each other. The single instance of an overlap occurs from [00:14] to [00:15], where B begins to speak just before A finishes. This is a very brief and common feature of natural conversation and does not harm the interactional flow. The other apparent overlaps are instances of a speaker talking over their own utterance (e.g., A at [00:10], [00:12], etc.). These are treated as artifacts of speech production or transcription rather than issues with the interactional fluency between the two participants. Therefore, the turn-taking is smooth and efficient.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/89",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: I just had the best grilled cheese sandwich!\n[[00:03],[00:06]] B: I had a chicken sandwich. It was so\n[[00:04],[00:05]] B: Cool.\n[[00:05],[00:10]] A: Wait, was it grilled or fried? Because that makes a huge difference!\n[[00:07],[00:08]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:10],[00:17]] B: It was grilled! And it was so good. I thought so too. It had blue cheese, avocado, and toasted sourdough.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Uh.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] A: It sounds really good!\n[[00:20],[00:22]] B: Did you eat at home or at a restaurant?\n[[00:22],[00:24]] A: At home, I made it.\n[[00:24],[00:28]] B: Oh that's so cute! Do you have any other favorite sandwich fillings?\n[[00:26],[00:27]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:28],[00:32]] A: I love turkey and Swiss. What's your favorite sandwich filling?\n[[00:30],[00:32]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:33],[00:36]] B: My favorite is ham and American cheese.\n[[00:36],[00:42]] A: Oh, I've never tried that. What about making it with a little bit of mustard? I bet that would add a nice kick!\n[[00:38],[00:39]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:40],[00:40]] A: Sure.\n[[00:43],[00:47]] B: Wait, are you saying you've never tried ham and American cheese? You have to!\n[[00:44],[00:46]] B: Yeah, yeah.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance. The conversation starts with one speaker's grilled cheese sandwich and naturally progresses to the other speaker's chicken sandwich. All subsequent questions and answers are directly related to the topic of sandwiches, such as clarifying preparation methods (grilled vs. fried), discussing ingredients (blue cheese, avocado), locations (home vs. restaurant), and favorite fillings (turkey, ham). The flow is logical and coherent, with each turn building upon the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very high. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the transitions are smooth and natural, with pauses of only one second at most. There are several instances of minor overlap, but they are not disruptive. For example, A's \"Uh huh\" [[00:30],[00:32]] and B's \"Yeah, yeah\" [[00:44],[00:46]] function as natural backchannels, indicating active listening. The other overlaps are self-corrections or filler words within a speaker's own turn (e.g., B's \"Cool\" at [00:04]). These features contribute to a natural and fluent conversational rhythm rather than detracting from it.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/89",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:09]] A: That makes sense about creative compromises, but could you give me some concrete examples of how curators have modified display methods to work within budget constraints?\n[[00:09],[00:20]] B: Sure! A common example is using digital projections instead of shipping fragile artworks. Or they might group smaller pieces together creatively to save\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:19],[00:31]] A: Interesting! But what happens when even those creative solutions aren't enough? How do curators decide what aspects of their vision are absolutely essential versus what can be changed?\n[[00:32],[00:44]] B: They typically prioritize the exhibition's central theme or message above all else. If a particular artwork is crucial to that message, they'll find a way to include\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: Um.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:39],[00:39]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:43],[00:52]] A: I'm curious about how early in the planning process these budget discussions happen - do curators get realistic numbers upfront or does that come later?\n[[00:53],[01:02]] B: The best practice is to have budget talks right at the start. That way, curators can shape their vision around financial realities from day one\n[[00:56],[00:58]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:59],[00:59]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[01:01],[01:12]] A: That seems smart! Could you explain how curators work with other departments like marketing or education to make sure the exhibition succeeds beyond just the artistic side?\n[[01:12],[01:30]] B: Absolutely! They collaborate closely with all teams. Marketing helps build audience interest, education develops programs around the show, and operations handles practical details. Regular meetings ensure everyone's working toward the same goals while respecting the artistic vision.\n[[01:17],[01:18]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[01:19],[01:20]] B: Really.\n[[01:21],[01:21]] B: Uh huh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B consistently provides direct, informative, and logically coherent answers to Speaker A's questions. Each question from A builds upon the previous answer from B, creating a cohesive and focused conversation about curatorial practices and budget constraints. For example, when A asks for \"concrete examples,\" B provides them (\"digital projections,\" \"group smaller pieces\"). When A asks about prioritization, B explains the focus on the \"central theme.\" This clear, on-topic progression shows high response relevance throughout the interaction.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth and natural, with no prolonged or awkward pauses between speakers. The one-second overlap from [00:19] to [00:20] is very brief and typical of an engaged, natural conversation, where one speaker begins slightly before the other has completely finished. The other instances of overlapping speech are self-overlaps where Speaker B uses fillers or backchannels (\"Mm hmm,\" \"Uh huh\") within their own turn, which does not disrupt the flow of the conversation between the two participants. There are no long pauses or disruptive interruptions, indicating a high degree of interactional fluency.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/89",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: That description of the mountain in spring was beautiful! Could you tell me more about what makes the Indian Paintbrush and lupines so special among mountain wildflowers?\n[[00:10],[00:17]] B: Indian Paintbrush stands out because of its fiery red and orange colors that look\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Cool.\n[[00:16],[00:26]] A: I love how you describe the wildlife too! What other animals might someone see while hiking on the mountain during springtime, and what should they look out for?\n[[00:27],[00:44]] B: In spring, you might spot deer grazing on new plants or marmots sunning themselves on rocks. Birds like bluebirds and hawks are very active too. Just remember to watch your step for snakes warming themselves on trails, and keep an eye out for bear tracks near streams.\n[[00:32],[00:33]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:34],[00:35]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] B: Hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B's first response directly begins to answer Speaker A's question about Indian Paintbrush wildflowers. Although Speaker A interrupts to change the topic, Speaker B's second response is also perfectly relevant, providing a detailed answer to the new question about wildlife and potential dangers on the mountain. The conversation maintains a coherent and logical flow, moving from one aspect of the mountain environment (flora) to another (fauna).\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. There is a minor overlap from [[00:16],[00:17]] where A begins speaking just as B is finishing. This type of brief overlap is common in natural conversation and indicates engagement. The other interjections from speaker B (\"Cool.\", \"Ummm.\", \"Hmm.\") are very short, self-contained utterances that function as brief fillers while they gather their thoughts. They do not significantly disrupt the flow of their main sentence or create awkward pauses. There are no extended, disruptive overlaps or long pauses between turns, leading to a smooth and natural-sounding interaction.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/90",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:08]] A: What are some common distractions that make it hard to listen at work, and how can I deal with them? I especially struggle when I'm hungry during meetings.\n[[00:09],[00:22]] B: Hunger can definitely distract you. Try eating a good meal before important meetings. Keep healthy snacks like nuts at your desk too. Staying hydrated\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Um.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Really.\n[[00:21],[00:29]] A: I also keep checking my phone during meetings even when I try not to. What are some good ways to stop this habit and pay better attention?\n[[00:30],[00:45]] B: Phones are tricky! First, turn off all notifications and put it on silent. Better yet, keep it in your bag during meetings. Focus on taking notes instead. If you're expecting something urgent, tell others you might need a quick break.\n[[00:34],[00:35]] B: Really.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:38],[00:39]] B: Uh huh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and coherence of the dialogue.\n\n1. **A's first turn to B's first turn:** A asks for advice on dealing with distractions at work, specifically hunger. B directly addresses the hunger issue with practical advice (eat before, keep snacks). This is a highly relevant and coherent response.\n2. **A's second turn to B's second turn:** A introduces a new, but related, distraction: checking their phone. This maintains the topic of \"work distractions.\" B then provides specific, relevant strategies to combat the phone habit (turn off notifications, put it away, take notes). This response is also directly relevant and coherent.\n\nThe entire conversation stays on the topic of workplace distractions, with each turn logically following the previous one. B provides direct and helpful answers to A's questions.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, focusing on pauses and overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:** There is a one-second pause between A's first turn ending at [00:08] and B's response starting at [00:09]. There is also a one-second pause between A's second turn ending at [00:29] and B's response at [00:30]. These are natural, brief pauses and do not disrupt the flow. There are no prolonged or awkward silences.\n2. **Overlaps:** There is a brief, one-second overlap where A begins speaking at [00:21] while B is finishing their turn at [00:22]. This is a minor, natural overlap and is not disruptive. The other instances marked for speaker B during A's turns (e.g., \"Mhm\", \"Really\", \"Yeah, yeah\") are backchannels. These are signs of active listening and are characteristic of a fluent, natural conversation, not harmful overlaps.\n\nThe conversation flows smoothly without any significant disruptive overlaps or long pauses.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/90",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: How do warm colors like red and orange create different moods compared to cool colors like blue and green in artwork? I'm curious about how artists use these color groups to affect emotions.\n[[00:12],[00:22]] B: Warm colors like red and orange make art feel energetic and exciting. They often show passion or happiness. Cool colors like blue and green create\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Mm.\n[[00:17],[00:17]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:21],[00:31]] A: That makes sense! But do different cultures interpret warm and cool colors in unique ways? I wonder if artists think about cultural meanings when choosing colors for their work.\n[[00:32],[00:47]] B: Yes, colors mean different things across cultures. For example, red means love in the West but good luck in Asia. Blue can mean peace in some places but sadness in others. Artists often use these cultural meanings to tell deeper stories through their color choices.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] B: I see.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance of the responses in the dialogue.\n\n1. **A's first question ([00:00]-[00:11]):** Asks about the emotional impact of warm vs. cool colors in art.\n2. **B's first response ([00:12]-[00:22]):** Directly answers the question, explaining that warm colors feel energetic and cool colors create a different mood. This is a relevant and coherent answer.\n3. **A's second question ([00:21]-[00:31]):** Builds on the previous topic by asking a logical follow-up question about cultural interpretations of these colors. The topic remains coherent.\n4. **B's second response ([00:32]-[00:47]):** Directly addresses the new question, providing specific examples of how color symbolism varies across cultures (red for love/luck, blue for peace/sadness). The response is highly relevant and expands on the conversation logically.\n\nThe entire dialogue is topically coherent and logically consistent. Each speaker's turn is a direct and relevant response to the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, focusing on pauses and overlaps.\n\n* **Pauses:** The pauses between turns are brief and natural. For example, the one-second pause between A's turn ending at [00:11] and B's starting at [00:12] is perfectly normal. Similarly, the pause from [00:31] to [00:32] is also natural. There are no long, awkward silences that would disrupt the flow.\n\n* **Overlaps:** There are several brief, overlapping utterances (e.g., \"Mm,\" \"Mhm,\" \"I see\"). The transcript attributes these to Speaker B during their own turn, which is likely a transcription error. Assuming these are backchannels from the listener (Speaker A), they are appropriate and indicate active listening. They are very short and do not interrupt or talk over the main speaker. Even if they were self-interjections from B, they are brief enough not to be disruptive. There are no extended, competitive overlaps where both speakers try to hold the floor.\n\nThe turn-taking is smooth and the pacing feels natural, characteristic of an engaged and fluent conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/90",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:13]] A: I see your point about time management, but could you explain how community service specifically helps students who are working part-time jobs while also playing sports? That seems like an especially tough balance.\n[[00:14],[00:30]] B: Great question! Many working student-athletes actually find community service helps them structure their time better. For instance, they might volunteer at a local animal shelter during their off-season, which gives them flexibility. Or\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Really.\n[[00:21],[00:21]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:22],[00:23]] B: I see.\n[[00:30],[00:40]] A: That makes sense, but what about students who literally don't have any free time between school, sports, and work? Wouldn't mandatory service just add more stress for them?\n[[00:41],[01:03]] B: Schools usually work closely with overwhelmed students to find solutions. Some options include shorter shifts, summer volunteering, or even counting paid work hours if the job serves the community. The goal isn't to overload anyone, but to help students discover how even small acts of\n[[00:47],[00:48]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:49],[00:50]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:51],[00:53]] B: Uh.\n[[01:02],[01:10]] A: Interesting! Could you share some real success stories of busy students who actually benefited from mandatory community service programs?\n[[01:11],[01:25]] B: Definitely! One high school quarterback volunteered coaching special needs kids once a month. He said it improved his leadership skills and actually helped his football performance. Another student working at a\n[[01:15],[01:16]] B: Uh huh.\n[[01:17],[01:17]] B: Uh.\n[[01:18],[01:20]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[01:24],[01:34]] A: That's really compelling! Before we wrap up, could you suggest some types of community service that would be easiest for extremely busy students to participate in?\n[[01:34],[01:57]] B: Sure! The best options are flexible and local. Things like neighborhood clean-ups on weekends, virtual tutoring sessions they can do from home, or one-time events like charity runs. Many schools also offer \"service learning\" where classroom projects count. The trick is matching the opportunity to the student's schedule and interests - that's when it feels rewarding, not burdensome.\n[[01:41],[01:42]] B: Yeah, yeah.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance and interactional fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n- Speaker A starts by asking a specific question about how community service helps student-athletes who also work part-time ([00:00]-[00:13]).\n- Speaker B provides a direct answer, suggesting it helps with time management and flexibility, giving a concrete example ([00:14]-[00:30]). This is highly relevant.\n- Speaker A then poses a logical follow-up question, asking about students with literally no free time ([00:30]-[00:40]). This shows A is listening and building on the conversation.\n- Speaker B addresses this new concern by listing accommodations schools can make (shorter shifts, summer options, etc.), directly answering A's question ([00:41]-[01:03]).\n- Speaker A then requests real-world examples to support B's claims ([01:02]-[01:10]), a logical next step in a persuasive conversation.\n- Speaker B provides two specific success stories as requested ([01:11]-[01:25]).\n- Speaker A, now convinced, asks for practical suggestions for types of service ([01:24]-[01:34]).\n- Speaker B concludes by offering several suitable and flexible options ([01:34]-[01:57]).\n\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent topic coherence. Each turn logically follows the previous one. The speakers stay on topic, and the conversation progresses naturally from a general question to specific examples and practical advice. The responses are consistently relevant and logical.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pause Analysis:**\n- There is a 1-second pause between A's turn ending at [00:13] and B's starting at [00:14]. This is a natural turn-taking gap.\n- There is a 1-second pause between A's turn ending at [00:40] and B's starting at [00:41]. This is also natural.\n- There is a 1-second pause between A's turn ending at [01:10] and B's starting at [01:11]. Again, natural.\n- In other instances, the next speaker begins immediately or with a slight overlap, indicating high engagement. There are no prolonged or awkward pauses.\n\n**Overlap Analysis:**\n- There are several instances of short interjections (e.g., [00:19], [00:47], [01:15]) attributed to speaker B while B is in the middle of a longer turn. This is most likely a transcription error, where backchanneling from speaker A was misattributed to B, or it's simply transcription noise. It does not represent a speaker interrupting themselves or another speaker in a disruptive way.\n- There is a 1-second overlap where A begins at [01:02] before B finishes at [01:03].\n- There is a 1-second overlap where A begins at [01:24] before B finishes at [01:25].\nThese are very minor overlaps, typical of an engaged and natural conversation where a listener anticipates the end of a turn. They are not extended or disruptive and do not hinder understanding.\n\nOverall, the interactional fluency is excellent. The conversation flows smoothly with natural turn-taking, appropriate pauses, and only minor, non-disruptive overlaps that suggest active listening.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/90",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: So, how's everything going?\n[[00:03],[00:09]] B: Good, I guess. I'm just really stressed out about school and\n[[00:06],[00:07]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:08],[00:14]] A: Sorry to jump in, but is it a specific subject that's stressing you out, or is it more about balancing everything?\n[[00:09],[00:11]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:15],[00:20]] B: It's more about balancing everything. I just feel like I can't do anything right lately.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:22],[00:28]] A: That's tough. But like I said, you're smart and you'll figure it out. Just don't give up on yourself, okay?\n[[00:25],[00:26]] A: Sure.\n[[00:29],[00:31]] B: Okay. Thanks, Om.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the provided dialogue transcript for response relevance and interactional fluency.\n\n1. **Response Relevance Analysis**:\n * A opens with a standard greeting, \"how's everything going?\".\n * B responds directly, stating they are \"Good, I guess\" but also \"stressed out about school\". This is a relevant and coherent answer.\n * A interrupts to ask a clarifying question: \"is it a specific subject that's stressing you out, or is it more about balancing everything?\". This is a highly relevant follow-up, showing A is actively listening.\n * B answers A's question directly: \"It's more about balancing everything.\" and elaborates on their feelings. This is perfectly relevant.\n * A offers support and encouragement in response to B's feelings of being overwhelmed. This is a logical and supportive continuation of the conversation.\n * B concludes by accepting the support (\"Okay. Thanks...\").\n * The entire dialogue is logically consistent and maintains topic coherence. Each turn is a direct and relevant response to the previous one.\n\n2. **Conclusion for Response Relevance**: The responses are consistently relevant and coherent. There are no issues here.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to analyze the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pause Analysis**:\n * There is a 2-second pause between A's opening question ([00:01]) and B's response ([00:03]). This is a natural length for gathering one's thoughts before speaking.\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's question ([00:14]) and B's answer ([00:15]). This is a normal turn-taking gap.\n * There is a 2-second pause between B's statement ([00:20]) and A's supportive comment ([00:22]). This is also a natural pause.\n * There are no prolonged or awkward pauses that disrupt the conversational flow.\n\n2. **Overlap Analysis**:\n * There is a clear overlap between [[00:08],[00:14]] (A's turn) and [[00:03],[00:09]] (B's turn). A starts speaking at [00:08] while B is still speaking. The overlap itself lasts for about 1 second ([00:08]-[00:09]).\n * However, this is not a harmful extended overlap. It's a brief interruption, and Speaker A immediately acknowledges it by saying, \"Sorry to jump in,\" which is a natural conversational repair strategy. This makes the interruption feel collaborative rather than disruptive.\n * The other overlaps noted in the transcript (e.g., \"Mhm\", \"Ummm\", \"Sure\") are self-overlaps or backchannels, which are normal features of natural speech and do not harm fluency.\n\n3. **Conclusion for Interactional Fluency**: The conversation flows naturally. There are no long, disruptive pauses. The one instance of speaker overlap is brief, acknowledged, and handled in a way that is common in natural, supportive conversations. Therefore, interactional fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/91",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:05]] A: Hey, are you sure you're going to be okay getting home by yourself? I don't want anything happening to\n[[00:01],[00:03]] A: Cool.\n[[00:04],[00:09]] B: I'll be fine, Roxana. I appreciate your concern, but I can take care of myself.\n[[00:06],[00:07]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:09],[00:17]] A: I know you can, but it's dark out and I just want to make sure you get home safely. Can I walk with you at least part of the way?\n[[00:12],[00:12]] A: Sure.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] A: Um.\n[[00:17],[00:23]] B: No, that's okay. I really appreciate it, but like I said, I'll be fine. Thanks though.\n[[00:20],[00:20]] B: Really.\n[[00:24],[00:29]] A: Okay, well, at least let me follow you home then to make sure you get in all right.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:29],[00:31]] B: That's really not necessary.\n[[00:31],[00:35]] A: I know, but I want to. So please, let me do this for you.\n[[00:33],[00:34]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:35],[00:37]] B: All right, thank you.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue for response relevance and interactional fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n1. Speaker A starts by expressing concern for Speaker B's safety: \"are you sure you're going to be okay getting home by yourself?\"\n2. Speaker B responds directly, reassuring A: \"I'll be fine... I can take care of myself.\"\n3. Speaker A acknowledges B's response but reiterates their concern and offers to walk with B: \"I know you can, but... Can I walk with you at least part of the way?\" This is a coherent continuation of the topic.\n4. Speaker B again responds directly, politely declining the offer: \"No, that's okay... I'll be fine.\"\n5. Speaker A proposes an alternative, less intrusive offer: \"at least let me follow you home then...\" This is a logical next step in the negotiation.\n6. Speaker B declines again: \"That's really not necessary.\"\n7. Speaker A insists, explaining their personal desire to help: \"I know, but I want to.\"\n8. Speaker B finally relents and accepts the offer: \"All right, thank you.\"\n\nThe conversation is entirely coherent. Each turn is a logical and relevant response to the previous one. The topic of B's safety is maintained consistently throughout the dialogue.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to analyze the interactional fluency, specifically looking for extended overlaps and long pauses.\n\n**Overlap Analysis:**\nThe transcript contains several lines that appear to be overlaps but are actually a speaker's own interjections or self-corrections within their turn. For example:\n- `[[00:09],[00:17]] A: I know you can...` and `[[00:12],[00:12]] A: Sure.` and `[[00:13],[00:14]] A: Um.` are all part of A's single turn.\nThere are no instances of two different speakers talking over each other for an extended period. The turn-taking is clean.\n\n**Pause Analysis:**\n- A ends at [00:05], B starts at [00:04]. This is a very brief, natural overlap, not a pause.\n- B ends at [00:09], A starts at [00:09]. No pause.\n- A ends at [00:17], B starts at [00:17]. No pause.\n- B ends at [00:23], A starts at [00:24]. A one-second pause, which is perfectly natural in conversation.\n- A ends at [00:29], B starts at [00:29]. No pause.\n- B ends at [00:31], A starts at [00:31]. No pause.\n- A ends at [00:35], B starts at [00:35]. No pause.\n\nThere are no long or awkward pauses between turns. The flow of the conversation is smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/91",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: Hi, I'd like to buy a ticket to LaGuardia Airport in New York.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Mm.\n[[00:04],[00:05]] B: Sure, what's your budget?\n[[00:06],[00:07]] A: $500.\n[[00:08],[00:16]] B: We have a few options within your budget. Our economy class tickets start at $400, or you could upgrade to business class for\n[[00:10],[00:12]] B: Mm.\n[[00:15],[00:21]] A: I'm sorry, but I think I'll stick with economy. Can I book that for $400?\n[[00:18],[00:19]] A: Cool.\n[[00:21],[00:25]] B: Of course. I just need your ID and credit card.\n[[00:22],[00:23]] B: Mm.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] A: Here you go.\n[[00:26],[00:30]] B: Thank you. Your total comes to $400.\n[[00:28],[00:28]] B: Um.\n[[00:30],[00:31]] A: That's it?\n[[00:31],[00:33]] B: Yes, have a safe flight!",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each turn is a logical and direct response to the preceding one. Speaker A starts by stating their need (a ticket), Speaker B asks a clarifying question about budget, A provides the budget, B gives options based on that budget, A makes a choice, and the conversation proceeds smoothly through the booking and payment process. The topic remains coherent and focused on the task of buying a plane ticket.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no prolonged, disruptive pauses between turns; the transitions are quick and natural. There is a brief, one-second overlap between [00:15] and [00:16] where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B to make their choice. This kind of short overlap is common and natural in human conversation, especially in a transactional context like this, and does not harm the fluency. Overall, the flow is smooth and conversational.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/92",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: I'm making a squash and onion pizza but I'm unsure about roasting times. Could you tell me exactly how long I should roast these vegetables before putting them on the pizza?\n[[00:11],[00:18]] B: For best results, roast your squash and onions for about one hour at 350\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Really.\n[[00:18],[00:25]] A: Wait, should I be checking on them during that hour or just leave them the whole time without opening the oven? I'm worried about losing heat.\n[[00:25],[00:31]] B: Good question! You should check them once around the 40-minute mark. Just give them a\n[[00:28],[00:29]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:30],[00:36]] A: What signs should I look for to know when the vegetables are perfectly roasted and ready for my pizza topping?\n[[00:36],[00:41]] B: You'll want the squash to be fork-tender and the onions should\n[[00:38],[00:39]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:40],[00:47]] A: After roasting, what temperature should I use to actually bake the pizza? I want the crust to be crispy but not burnt.\n[[00:47],[00:54]] B: Bump the oven up to 375 degrees for baking the pizza itself. This\n[[00:49],[00:51]] B: Cool.\n[[00:53],[00:58]] A: How long should I bake the assembled pizza at that temperature? And should I use the middle rack or higher up?\n[[00:59],[01:05]] B: Bake for 15-20 minutes on the middle rack. Keep an eye on it after\n[[01:01],[01:01]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[01:02],[01:03]] B: Uh huh.\n[[01:04],[01:11]] A: One last thing - should I use parchment paper or just put the pizza directly on the baking sheet? I'm concerned about sticking.\n[[01:12],[01:21]] B: Either works! Parchment makes cleanup easier, but if you oil your baking sheet well, the pizza will slide right off when done.\n[[01:14],[01:15]] B: Hmm.\n[[01:16],[01:17]] B: Mm hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants an evaluation of a dialogue transcript based on Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\nThe dialogue follows a very logical and coherent path.\n- Speaker A starts by asking about roasting times for vegetables for a pizza.\n- Speaker B provides a direct and relevant answer.\n- Speaker A then asks a series of logical follow-up questions related to the pizza-making process: how to check the vegetables, signs of doneness, baking temperature for the pizza, baking time, and whether to use parchment paper.\n- Speaker B consistently provides direct, relevant, and helpful answers to each of A's questions.\nThe conversation stays on the topic of making a squash and onion pizza, and each turn logically follows the previous one. There are no inconsistencies or topic drifts. The relevance is excellent.\n\n\n\nThe user wants an evaluation of Interactional Fluency, focusing on extended overlaps and long pauses.\n\n**Pause Analysis:**\n- There are no long pauses between turns. The time between one speaker finishing and the next starting is consistently one second or less, which indicates a smooth and natural conversational flow.\n\n**Overlap Analysis:**\n- There are several instances of overlap.\n- **B's self-overlaps:** Speaker B often interjects with short fillers like \"That's cool,\" \"Okay,okay,\" \"Ummm,\" \"Cool,\" and \"Hmm\" during their own speaking turns. These are brief backchannels or thinking-aloud moments and do not disrupt the flow of information.\n- **A overlapping B:** There are multiple instances where A begins speaking just before B finishes their sentence (e.g., at [00:30], [00:40], [00:53], [01:04]). However, these overlaps are very short, lasting only about one second. In each case, B has already delivered the core of their answer. This pattern suggests a fast-paced, eager conversation rather than a disruptive or rude one. The overlaps are not extended and do not prevent the communication of information.\nOverall, the fluency is high. The lack of long pauses and the brief, non-disruptive nature of the overlaps contribute to a natural and dynamic interaction.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/93",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:15]] A: Could you give me a simple step-by-step guide for designing website content that helps with marketing? I want to know about picking topics, writing good titles, using visuals, and social media strategies. Also, how important are user experience and SEO when creating content?\n[[00:16],[00:26]] B: Sure! First, pick topics your audience cares about. Use tools to find popular keywords. Write clear, catchy titles that include\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:22],[00:22]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:25],[00:39]] A: You mentioned using visuals earlier. Could you share some specific examples of effective images and videos that work well for website content? I want to make sure my site looks professional and engaging.\n[[00:40],[01:04]] B: Great question! High-quality product photos work well for e-commerce sites. Infographics help explain complex topics simply. Short tutorial videos are great for showing how to use products. Before-and-after images work well for service businesses. Always use clear, well-lit photos and keep videos under two minutes for best engagement. Remember to add descriptive captions too.\n[[00:48],[00:48]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:49],[00:50]] B: Sure.\n[[00:51],[00:52]] B: That's cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user A initiates the conversation with a comprehensive question about designing website content for marketing, covering several key areas. The bot B begins to answer in a structured manner, starting with the first point (picking topics). User A then interrupts to ask a more specific follow-up question about one of the topics they mentioned initially (visuals). The bot B pivots smoothly and provides a detailed, relevant answer to this new, more focused question. The responses are logically consistent and stay on the topic defined by the user. The dialogue shows good topic coherence and relevance.\n\n\n\nThe dialogue contains several overlaps. The initial backchannels from B ([[00:19],[00:20]], [[00:22],[00:22]]) during A's long opening question are natural and indicate active listening. There is a significant overlap starting at [00:25] where user A interrupts B's response to ask a follow-up question. This interruption is contextually appropriate as A is clarifying and redirecting the conversation based on the initial topic list. The pauses between turns ([[00:15],[00:16]] and [[00:39],[00:40]]) are very short (1 second), which contributes to a natural and responsive conversational flow. The brief, self-overlapping filler words from B during its final turn are slightly unnatural but do not disrupt the overall interaction. The fluency is excellent, mirroring a natural human conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/93",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: Can cats see in total darkness? I've always wondered how their vision compares to humans in dark conditions, especially since they're so active at night.\n[[00:11],[00:17]] B: Actually, cats can't see in complete darkness, but their night vision is way better than ours. Their eyes let\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:16],[00:23]] A: Wait, so if they can't see in total darkness, how do they manage to move around so well at night when it's pitch black?\n[[00:23],[00:32]] B: That's a great question! Along with their enhanced vision, cats rely on their whiskers to sense air currents and vibrations. Plus, their\n[[00:28],[00:28]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:32],[00:39]] A: That makes sense! Since cats have such good night vision, are they actually the best at seeing in low light compared to all other animals out there?\n[[00:40],[00:50]] B: While cats are definitely near the top, some animals actually outperform them. Owls, for example, have incredible night\n[[00:43],[00:43]] B: Cool.\n[[00:44],[00:45]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:49],[00:55]] A: Really? I didn't know owls were that much better! What other animals have better night vision than cats, and how do they compare?\n[[00:56],[01:11]] B: Besides owls, certain nocturnal monkeys and rodents like tarsiers have superior night vision. Their eyes are specially adapted with larger pupils and more light-sensitive cells, giving them an edge over cats in complete darkness.\n[[01:00],[01:01]] B: Uh huh.\n[[01:02],[01:03]] B: Really.\n[[01:04],[01:05]] B: Mm hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance of the responses in the dialogue.\n\n1. **A's first turn [[00:00],[00:10]]**: A asks a specific question about cats' ability to see in total darkness.\n2. **B's first turn [[00:11],[00:17]]**: B directly answers the question, stating that cats cannot see in *complete* darkness but clarifying that their night vision is superior to humans. This is a perfectly relevant and informative response.\n3. **A's second turn [[00:16],[00:23]]**: A asks a logical follow-up question based on B's clarification. If they can't see in pitch black, how do they navigate? This demonstrates good listening and keeps the conversation on a coherent path.\n4. **B's second turn [[00:23],[00:32]]**: B provides a relevant answer, explaining that cats use other senses like their whiskers. The response directly addresses A's question.\n5. **A's third turn [[00:32],[00:39]]**: A accepts B's explanation and broadens the topic slightly but still within the same domain, asking if cats have the *best* night vision among all animals. This is a natural progression of the conversation.\n6. **B's third turn [[00:40],[00:50]]**: B answers the new question directly, stating that other animals like owls are better. This is relevant and moves the conversation forward.\n7. **A's fourth turn [[00:49],[00:55]]**: A expresses interest and asks for more examples, which is a direct and logical reaction to B's previous statement.\n8. **B's fourth turn [[00:56],[01:11]]**: B provides more examples (tarsiers) and explains the biological reasons, fully and relevantly answering A's final question.\n\nOverall, the dialogue shows excellent topic coherence. Each turn is a logical and relevant response to the previous one, creating a natural and informative exchange.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and disruptive overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses between turns**:\n * [00:10] -> [00:11]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n * [00:23] -> [00:23]: 0-second pause. Smooth transition.\n * [00:32] -> [00:32]: 0-second pause. Smooth transition.\n * [00:39] -> [00:40]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n * [00:55] -> [00:56]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n There are no long or awkward pauses between speaker turns. The flow is quick and natural.\n\n2. **Overlaps between speakers**:\n * A starts speaking at [00:16] while B is still speaking until [00:17]. This is a brief, 1-second overlap. It's a common feature of engaged conversation where one speaker eagerly jumps in with a follow-up question. It is not disruptive.\n * A starts speaking at [00:49] while B is still speaking until [00:50]. This is another brief, 1-second overlap, similar to the one above. It signals engagement rather than disruption.\n\n3. **Other sounds**: The transcript notes several instances of speaker B making short utterances like \"Okay,okay,\" \"Uh huh,\" and \"Cool\" during their own speaking turns. These are not overlaps between speakers but rather self-talk or verbal tics. They do not interrupt speaker A or disrupt the turn-taking flow of the conversation.\n\nConclusion: The interactional fluency is excellent. The transitions between speakers are smooth, with very short, natural pauses and only minor, non-disruptive overlaps that indicate engagement.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/93",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: Could you explain in simpler words what it means to break the tedium and add excitement to life? I'm looking for clear examples of how to make daily life more interesting and vibrant.\n[[00:12],[00:24]] B: Breaking the tedium means shaking up your routine to make life more exciting. You could try new hobbies like painting or cooking different foods. Taking a spontaneous trip or joining\n[[00:17],[00:19]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:23],[00:33]] A: Those sound like great ideas! Could you give me more specific examples of activities that would help me step out of my comfort zone and bring more energy into my daily routine?\n[[00:34],[00:52]] B: Absolutely! You could challenge yourself by trying rock climbing if you've never done it before. Attending a concert for music you don't normally listen to can be exciting. Volunteering for a cause you care about also brings new energy and purpose to your life.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] B: Mm.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Sure.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and coherence of the dialogue.\n\n1. **A's first turn:** A asks for a simple explanation of \"breaking the tedium\" and for examples.\n2. **B's first turn:** B provides a clear, simple definition (\"shaking up your routine\") and gives relevant examples (new hobbies, spontaneous trips). This directly answers A's question.\n3. **A's second turn:** A acknowledges B's good ideas and asks for more specific examples that involve stepping out of one's comfort zone. This is a logical and coherent follow-up.\n4. **B's second turn:** B provides more specific and challenging examples (rock climbing, trying new music, volunteering) that directly address A's request to step out of a comfort zone.\n\nThe conversation flows logically. Each response is directly relevant to the preceding turn, building upon the topic coherently. There are no inconsistencies or topic shifts.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses or disruptive overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:**\n * Between A's first turn ([00:11]) and B's response ([00:12]), there is a 1-second pause, which is natural.\n * Between A's second turn ([00:33]) and B's response ([00:34]), there is a 1-second pause, which is also natural.\n * There are no prolonged or awkward pauses between speaker turns.\n\n2. **Overlaps:**\n * There is a minor, 1-second overlap where A begins speaking ([00:23]) just as B is finishing their turn ([00:24]). This is a common feature of natural, engaged conversation and is not disruptive.\n * The other transcribed utterances for B ([[00:17],[00:19]], [[00:39],[00:40]], etc.) occur during B's own speaking turns. These are backchannels or filler words that B says while forming their thoughts, not overlaps with speaker A. They do not disrupt the flow of the interaction between the two speakers.\n\nThe interaction is smooth and flows naturally without any harmful interruptions or long delays.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/93",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Hi, Adina.\n[[00:01],[00:03]] B: Hey, Ace. What's up?\n[[00:05],[00:10]] A: I'm just trying to access your account. The password was really easy to guess, by the way.\n[[00:07],[00:08]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:11],[00:17]] B: Yeah, I know. It's not like I have anything to hide from you, any\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:16],[00:21]] A: Wait, you don't think it's a bit risky to have such an easy password? What if someone else figured it out?\n[[00:18],[00:19]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:22],[00:31]] B: I guess you're right, I should probably change it. But honestly, I didn't think anyone would bother trying. Anyway, what did you want to look at in my account?\n[[00:25],[00:26]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:32],[00:37]] A: I don't know. I just thought it would be interesting to see what you're up to when I'm not around.\n[[00:34],[00:35]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:38],[00:40]] B: And why would you want to do that?",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each turn logically follows the previous one, creating a coherent and easy-to-follow conversation. Speaker A starts by mentioning they accessed Speaker B's account due to an easy password. Speaker B acknowledges this and downplays the risk. Speaker A then questions the risk, and B concedes the point before shifting the topic back to why A was in their account. A provides a reason, and B asks for further clarification. The entire exchange is thematically consistent and progresses naturally.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There is one noticeable two-second pause at the beginning ([[00:03],[00:05]]), but it's not long enough to be considered disruptive to the conversational flow. The other turns follow each other promptly. There are no instances of speakers talking over each other for extended periods. The brief sounds like \"Ummm,\" \"Hmm,\" and \"Mhm\" are natural fillers within a speaker's own turn and do not constitute harmful overlaps. The conversation flows smoothly and naturally.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/94",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: That's an amazing adventure story! Could you describe in more detail what kinds of tricky obstacles and puzzles the explorer encountered while trying to reach the golden city's treasure?\n[[00:11],[00:23]] B: The explorer faced many clever traps designed to protect the city. There were pressure plates that triggered hidden darts, walls that suddenly closed in, and\n[[00:17],[00:19]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:22],[00:32]] A: The guardian beasts sound terrifying! How exactly did the explorer manage to get past those dangerous creatures protecting the city's inner chambers without getting hurt?\n[[00:33],[00:56]] B: The beasts were indeed fearsome, with razor-sharp claws and glowing eyes. The explorer used quick thinking rather than force, throwing food to distract them and using mirrors to reflect light into their eyes. At one point, playing a soothing melody on a found flute actually calmed the creatures enough to sneak past.\n[[00:40],[00:41]] B: Sure.\n[[00:42],[00:43]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:44],[00:45]] B: Mm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user A and user B are engaged in a storytelling-like conversation.\nA's first turn asks for details about obstacles in an adventure. B's response is directly relevant, describing traps like pressure plates and closing walls.\nA's second turn logically follows up, asking how the explorer dealt with guardian beasts. B's response is again perfectly on topic, detailing how the explorer used cleverness to bypass the creatures.\nThe dialogue is thematically coherent and logically consistent. Each turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one. The strange interjections from B (\"That's cool\", \"Sure\", etc.) are out of place in terms of content, but the main body of each speaker's turn is perfectly relevant.\n\n\n\nThe turn-taking between the speakers is generally smooth. The pause between the first and second turns is a natural 1 second. The pause between the third and fourth turns is also a natural 1 second. There are no prolonged, awkward silences.\nThere is a minor, 1-second overlap where A begins speaking at [00:22] just before B finishes at [00:23]. This is a common and acceptable feature of engaged conversation.\nHowever, there are several highly unnatural self-interruptions from speaker B. At [00:17], B says \"That's cool\" while in the middle of their own sentence. Similarly, B utters \"Sure\", \"Uh huh\", and \"Mm\" during their long speaking turn from [00:33] to [00:56]. A speaker providing their own backchannels is extremely unnatural. Despite this strangeness, these interruptions are very brief and do not derail the primary flow of the conversation. The core turn-taking remains fluid.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/94",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hey, I need to talk to you about something.\n[[00:02],[00:03]] B: What is it?\n[[00:04],[00:07]] A: I found out that your boyfriend has been cheating on you.\n[[00:05],[00:06]] A: I see.\n[[00:08],[00:09]] B: What? Are you sure?\n[[00:10],[00:15]] A: Yes, I'm positive. I saw him with another woman and they were definitely\n[[00:13],[00:13]] A: I see.\n[[00:14],[00:18]] B: Wait, are you absolutely certain it was him? Maybe it was someone who looked like him.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:19],[00:27]] A: I'm certain it was him. They were definitely kissing. Oh my god, I can't believe this is happening. I thought he loved me and would never do something like this.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] A: Mm.\n[[00:23],[00:24]] A: Um.\n[[00:28],[00:35]] B: I know this is hard, but you have to consider if you really want to confront him right away or take some time to think.\n[[00:30],[00:32]] B: Sure.\n[[00:35],[00:40]] A: He doesn't deserve you. You deserve better than someone who would cheat on you.\n[[00:38],[00:38]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:41],[00:44]] B: Thank you for telling me, Rena. I appreciate it.\n[[00:44],[00:50]] A: No problem. I just wanted to let you know so you could make a decision about what you want to do next.\n[[00:46],[00:47]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:50],[00:55]] B: I think I need some time to process this. I'm going to go home and talk to him about it.\n[[00:52],[00:53]] B: Really.\n[[00:56],[00:58]] A: Okay, let me know if you need anything.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. The conversation begins with speaker A delivering sensitive news to speaker B. Speaker B's reactions, starting with disbelief (\"What? Are you sure?\") and moving toward a plan of action (\"I think I need some time to process this... I'm going to go home and talk to him\"), are coherent and appropriate for the situation. Speaker A consistently stays in the role of a supportive friend, providing information and offering comfort (\"He doesn't deserve you,\" \"let me know if you need anything\"). The topic remains focused throughout the interaction, and the progression of the dialogue is logical.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency of the dialogue is excellent. There are no prolonged pauses between turns, indicating a smooth and natural conversational flow. The turn-taking is well-managed, and there are no extended overlaps where the speakers talk over one another, which ensures clarity. The few very brief overlaps and self-interjections (e.g., \"Hmm,\" \"Uh huh\") are typical of natural speech, acting as minor thinking sounds or backchannels that do not disrupt the interaction. The overall rhythm and pacing are appropriate and fluent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/96",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:09]] A: That makes sense about fitness and training, but could you tell me more specifically about how the New York course affects runners' times compared to other marathons?\n[[00:09],[00:15]] B: The New York course is actually one of the toughest major marathons because of all the\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:14],[00:22]] A: I didn't realize New York had so many hills! Between the bridges and weather, which factor tends to slow runners down more during the race?\n[[00:22],[00:34]] B: Great question! The bridges are challenging, but bad weather usually has a bigger impact. Strong winds or extreme heat can add 10-20 minutes\n[[00:25],[00:26]] B: Cool.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] B: Really.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:33],[00:41]] A: Speaking of the start, I've heard the New York marathon has a unique beginning - could you explain how the wave starts work and if they affect finish times?\n[[00:42],[00:53]] B: Yes! There are multiple start waves with different pace groups spread across the Verrazano Bridge. This helps prevent crowding but means some runners wait hours before\n[[00:45],[00:46]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:47],[00:48]] B: Really.\n[[00:49],[00:50]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:52],[01:00]] A: That's interesting about the waiting time - do you think runners should adjust their nutrition strategy because of these long delays before starting?\n[[01:01],[01:10]] B: Absolutely! Many runners eat extra snacks while waiting since they burn energy just staying warm. The key is\n[[01:03],[01:04]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[01:05],[01:07]] B: Mhm.\n[[01:09],[01:20]] A: For someone training for their first New York marathon, what would you say is the most important thing to focus on in preparation for these unique challenges?\n[[01:20],[01:34]] B: Definitely practice hill repeats and bridge simulations in training. Also do some long runs at race pace after waiting, to mimic race day. And always have backup plans for weather - test different gear options!\n[[01:24],[01:25]] B: Mhm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each turn logically builds on the previous one, creating a coherent and focused conversation about the challenges of the New York City Marathon. Speaker A asks a series of specific, well-formed questions, starting with the course's effect on times, then narrowing in on specific challenges like hills, weather, and the wave start system. Speaker B provides direct, informative, and relevant answers to each of A's questions. The conversation flows topically from course difficulty to race logistics, to nutrition, and finally to a summary of training advice, showing strong topic coherence throughout.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is rapid and smooth, with no awkward or prolonged pauses between speakers, which contributes to a natural and engaging conversational rhythm. There are several instances of brief, one-second overlaps (e.g., at [[00:14]], [[00:33]], [[00:52]]), but these are not disruptive. Instead, they indicate high engagement from speaker A, who is quick to ask follow-up questions. The overlaps are minimal and do not hinder the flow or understanding of the conversation. The frequent use of backchannels (e.g., \"Mm hmm,\" \"Okay, okay\") also enhances the fluency, signaling active listening and keeping the dialogue dynamic.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/96",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: I'm sorry for making fun of your nose. It was mean of\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:03],[00:09]] B: Hey, it's okay. I know you didn't mean it, but can we talk about why you felt the need to joke like that?\n[[00:06],[00:07]] B: Cool.\n[[00:11],[00:16]] A: Yeah, I was just joking around. I guess I didn't think it through. But I really am sorry.\n[[00:12],[00:13]] A: Right.\n[[00:17],[00:20]] B: Don't worry about it, son. Just be more mindful next time.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Right.\n[[00:22],[00:23]] A: Alright, thank you.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] B: You're welcome.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue transcript based on Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n1. **A's opening turn ([00:00]-[00:04]):** \"I'm sorry for making fun of your nose. It was mean of...\" This sets the topic as an apology.\n2. **B's response ([00:03]-[00:09]):** \"Hey, it's okay... but can we talk about why you felt the need to joke like that?\" This is a perfectly relevant response. It accepts the apology conditionally and seeks to understand the root cause, thus maintaining topic coherence and logical progression.\n3. **A's next turn ([00:11]-[00:16]):** \"Yeah, I was just joking around. I guess I didn't think it through. But I really am sorry.\" This directly answers B's question and reinforces the apology. It's coherent and relevant.\n4. **B's response ([00:17]-[00:20]):** \"Don't worry about it, son. Just be more mindful next time.\" This accepts the explanation and apology, offering advice and closure. This is a logical continuation.\n5. **A's closing ([00:22]-[00:23]):** \"Alright, thank you.\" Acknowledges the advice and forgiveness.\n6. **B's final line ([00:25]-[00:26]):** \"You're welcome.\" A standard, relevant closing.\n\n**Conclusion:** The conversation is entirely logical and coherent. Each turn is a direct and appropriate response to the previous one. The topic is maintained throughout. There are no issues with response relevance.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for Interactional Fluency, specifically looking for extended overlaps and long pauses.\n\n**Pause Analysis:**\n* **[00:09] to [00:11]:** A ~2-second pause between B's turn and A's response. This is a normal, acceptable pause for thought in a conversation.\n* **[00:16] to [00:17]:** A ~1-second pause. Very natural.\n* **[00:20] to [00:22]:** A ~2-second pause. Also natural and not disruptive.\n* **[00:23] to [00:25]:** A ~2-second pause. Again, acceptable.\n* **Conclusion on pauses:** There are no prolonged or harmful pauses. The pacing is natural.\n\n**Overlap Analysis:**\n* **[00:03]-[00:04]:** B starts speaking (\"Hey, it's okay...\") while A is finishing their sentence (\"...it was mean of\"). This is a one-second overlap. This is very common in natural speech, where a listener starts responding just before the speaker fully finishes. It is brief and not disruptive.\n* **Self-Overlaps:** The transcript shows speakers A and B making short utterances (\"That's cool,\" \"Right,\" \"Cool\") that overlap with their own main sentences. While odd in a transcript, these likely represent brief, thinking-out-loud interjections or backchannels that don't interrupt the primary flow of communication between the speakers. They are not extended, harmful overlaps *between* different speakers' main turns.\n\n**Conclusion:** The turn-taking is smooth. The one brief overlap between speakers is natural. There are no long pauses. The interactional fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/96",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hey, do you want to know what I was just thinking?\n[[00:02],[00:04]] B: Of course! Tell me.\n[[00:06],[00:23]] A: Well, I was thinking about how everything in the universe is connected. And how, even though we might not realize it, everything we do has an effect on everything else. It's like the butterfly effect; even the smallest action can cause a chain reaction that has a huge\n[[00:11],[00:12]] A: Uh.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] A: I see.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] A: I see.\n[[00:22],[00:27]] B: Sorry to jump in, but do you think that means we should be more cautious with our choices, even the small ones?\n[[00:23],[00:25]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:29],[00:41]] A: Exactly, that's what I was getting at. It makes you realize how important every decision we make is. But also, it's fascinating to think about how interconnected everything really is.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] A: Right.\n[[00:41],[00:46]] B: Yeah, it is. It makes you appreciate the complexity of life even more.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent relevance and coherence. Speaker A introduces a philosophical concept about the interconnectedness of the universe. Speaker B's response is directly related, asking a clarifying question about the practical implications of this concept (\"do you think that means we should be more cautious with our choices...?\"). Speaker A confirms this is precisely their point and elaborates. Speaker B then builds on A's elaboration, adding their own reflection (\"it makes you appreciate the complexity of life even more\"). Each turn logically follows the previous one, and the speakers collaboratively explore the same topic without deviation.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very natural. There is a two-second pause [[00:04],[00:06]] before speaker A begins their complex thought, which is a normal thinking pause. The main overlap occurs when B interjects at [[00:22]] while A is still finishing their sentence at [[00:23]]. However, B immediately acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which makes the interruption a sign of high engagement rather than a disruptive act. The other short, overlapping utterances like \"Yeah, yeah\" and \"Hmm\" function as natural backchannels, indicating active listening and agreement without disrupting the primary speaker's flow. There are no prolonged, awkward pauses or disruptive overlaps. The turn-taking is smooth and characteristic of an engaged, natural conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/97",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Hey, Joe. How are you doing?\n[[00:02],[00:07]] B: Hey, Rome. I'm doing alright. Just taking a break from work and enjoying the fresh air.\n[[00:04],[00:05]] B: Mm.\n[[00:08],[00:14]] A: Yeah, I know how that is. I'm just glad to have a break from work myself and to be able to relax for a bit.\n[[00:11],[00:12]] A: Mm.\n[[00:16],[00:19]] B: Yeah, me too. So, what's been going on with you?\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:20],[00:23]] A: Not much, just the usual work\n[[00:22],[00:30]] B: Sorry to jump in, but have you considered taking a short trip to clear your mind? Sometimes a change of scenery can really help with stress.\n[[00:24],[00:25]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:26],[00:28]] B: Right.\n[[00:31],[00:38]] A: That's a good idea. I haven't thought about that. But I was going to say, the usual work and stress. You know how it is.\n[[00:35],[00:35]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:39],[00:45]] B: Yeah, I do. But it's good to have a break from it all, even if it's just for a little while.\n[[00:42],[00:43]] B: Right.\n[[00:45],[00:48]] A: Definitely. So, what have you been up to?\n[[00:49],[00:54]] B: Just hanging out with friends and family, doing some hobbies like painting and hiking.\n[[00:52],[00:53]] B: Really.\n[[00:55],[01:01]] A: Speaking of hobbies, have you picked up any new ones recently? I'm always looking for new things to try.\n[[00:58],[00:59]] A: That's cool.\n[[01:03],[01:10]] B: Actually, yes. I've started learning how to play the guitar. It's been really fun and a great way to unwind.\n[[01:05],[01:06]] B: Really.\n[[01:12],[01:16]] A: That sounds great. I'm definitely going to have to take some time for that soon.\n[[01:16],[01:22]] B: Yeah, you should definitely make some time for yourself. We all need it sometimes.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and coherent. The conversation starts with a standard greeting and moves into a discussion about taking a break from work and stress. Speaker B's interruption at [[00:22]] is directly related to speaker A's mention of \"work,\" and B even apologizes (\"Sorry to jump in\"), which shows awareness of the conversational flow. Speaker A smoothly acknowledges the suggestion and then finishes their original thought. The topic transitions naturally from stress relief to hobbies, with speaker A explicitly linking the topics (\"Speaking of hobbies...\"). Each turn logically follows the previous one, creating a cohesive and easy-to-follow conversation.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency of the dialogue is excellent. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the gaps are brief and typical of a natural conversation (e.g., 1-2 seconds between most turns). The most significant overlap occurs from [[00:22]] to [[00:23]], where B interrupts A. However, this overlap is very short (about one second) and is a common feature of engaged, natural dialogue. Furthermore, speaker B manages the interruption smoothly by acknowledging it, which makes the interaction feel more authentic rather than flawed. The other instances of overlapping speech are backchannels from a speaker during their own turn (e.g., B at [[00:04],[00:05]]), which are not detrimental to the flow between speakers. Overall, the turn-taking is smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/98",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:09]] A: Could you tell me more about what the scenery was like during your half-marathon experience? I'm curious about the different landscapes you passed through and how they made you feel during the race.\n[[00:10],[00:24]] B: The course took us through so many beautiful places that kept me motivated. We started downtown with tall buildings all around, and people cheering from sidewalks made me feel excited. Then we ran past a\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Mm.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:23],[00:35]] A: That sounds amazing! What was your favorite part of the race in terms of scenery, and did any particular view help you push through when you were feeling tired? I'd love to know how the environment kept you going.\n[[00:36],[00:55]] B: The wooded trail around mile nine was my favorite - tall trees shaded the path while sunlight peeked through the leaves. Hearing birds sing and feeling the cool breeze gave me a second wind when my legs were tired. Seeing nature's beauty reminded me why I loved running and kept me moving forward.\n[[00:42],[00:42]] B: Uh.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:45],[00:46]] B: Sure.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B's first response ([[00:10],[00:24]]) directly addresses Speaker A's question ([[00:00],[00:09]]) about the scenery during a half-marathon, describing the downtown start and the feeling it evoked. Speaker A's follow-up question ([[00:23],[00:35]]) is a logical continuation, asking for a favorite part of the scenery and its motivational impact. Speaker B's final response ([[00:36],[00:55]]) answers this question specifically and in detail, describing the wooded trail and how it provided a \"second wind.\" The conversation remains on topic and progresses logically from a general question to a more specific one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. The pauses between turns are brief and natural (e.g., a one-second pause between [00:09] and [00:10]). There is one minor, one-second overlap when A begins speaking at [00:23] just before B finishes at [00:24], which is typical of natural, engaged conversation and is not disruptive. The transcript incorrectly attributes several backchanneling phrases (\"Mm hmm,\" \"That's cool,\" etc.) to speaker B while B is in the middle of a long turn. Assuming this is a transcription error and these are actually from speaker A, they function as brief, appropriate affirmations that show active listening without interrupting the speaker's flow. There are no extended, disruptive overlaps or long, awkward pauses.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/98",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: Hey, Martina. I hope you don't mind me asking, but can I borrow your pen?\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:05],[00:07]] B: No, it's fine. Go ahead.\n[[00:08],[00:10]] A: Thanks. I really appreciate it.\n[[00:11],[00:14]] B: No problem. So what are you up to\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: Really.\n[[00:13],[00:20]] A: Actually, I wanted to ask you something else. Do you have any tips for staying focused while working on your laptop?\n[[00:16],[00:17]] A: Right.\n[[00:21],[00:30]] B: Oh, definitely! One thing I find really helpful is to take regular breaks. It keeps my mind fresh. You were saying, what are you up to today?\n[[00:24],[00:26]] B: Right.\n[[00:31],[00:35]] A: Not much. Just hanging out and doing some work on my laptop. You?\n[[00:33],[00:34]] A: I see.\n[[00:37],[00:42]] B: Same here. Just trying to get some things done before the weekend and maybe catch up on some reading.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] B: Really.\n[[00:43],[00:49]] A: Speaking of the weekend, do you have any plans? I'm thinking of going hiking if the weather is nice.\n[[00:46],[00:47]] A: Right.\n[[00:51],[00:58]] B: That sounds great! I might join you if that's okay. But yeah, just trying to get some things done before the weekend hits.\n[[00:55],[00:55]] B: I see.\n[[00:58],[01:04]] A: Yeah, I know how that is. Well, I should probably get going. Thanks again for the pen.\n[[01:00],[01:02]] A: Hmm.\n[[01:05],[01:08]] B: No problem. See you later.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation begins with a simple request (borrowing a pen) and a direct, affirmative response. The speakers then transition smoothly into a broader chat. Speaker B asks what A is up to, and A pivots to a related question about work focus, which is a natural conversational move. Speaker B answers A's question and then skillfully circles back to their original question, showing they were actively listening. The conversation continues logically, with speakers building on each other's points (e.g., \"Speaking of the weekend...\"). The closing is also well-handled, with A referencing the initial reason for the interaction (\"Thanks again for the pen\") before ending the chat. All turns are coherent and logically connected.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. The pauses between turns are consistently short and natural, typically lasting only one or two seconds (e.g., between [00:04]-[00:05] and [00:07]-[00:08]). There are no prolonged or awkward silences that disrupt the flow. There is one minor overlap between A's turn at [00:13] and B's turn at [00:14], but it is very brief (one second) and typical of natural, enthusiastic conversation rather than a disruptive interruption. The other overlaps are self-overlaps, where a speaker uses a filler like \"Right\" or \"I see\" during their own turn, which is completely natural and does not harm fluency.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/98",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: Could you explain how to make that fancy cocktail from Dinnertable's beverage director? I need detailed steps but also want to understand why each step matters for the final drink.\n[[00:10],[00:17]] B: Sure! First you'll want to gather all your ingredients and a proper mixing glass.\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: Really.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: I see.\n[[00:16],[00:24]] A: Wait, before you continue, what kind of mixing glass would you recommend for this particular cocktail? Should it be a specific size or material?\n[[00:24],[00:33]] B: Great question! A standard 16-ounce mixing glass works best, preferably made of thick glass to\n[[00:27],[00:28]] B: Really.\n[[00:32],[00:41]] A: Sorry to interrupt again, but could you clarify if I need any special tools besides the mixing glass? Like specific strainers or bar spoons?\n[[00:41],[00:55]] B: No problem at all! You'll need a basic bar spoon for stirring and a fine mesh strainer. The strainer makes sure no ice chips get into your finished drink. Now where was I? Oh right - after adding your ingredients to the glass...\n[[00:45],[00:46]] B: Uh.\n[[00:47],[00:48]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:49],[00:49]] B: Mhm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue's response relevance is excellent. Speaker A starts with a clear, two-part question: how to make a cocktail and why the steps are important. Speaker B begins to answer logically. Speaker A interrupts twice with highly relevant clarifying questions about equipment (mixing glass, other tools). Speaker B answers each of these questions directly and effectively, and even skillfully manages to return to the main topic after the second interruption (\"Now where was I? Oh right...\"). This demonstrates strong topic coherence and logical consistency throughout the interaction. The short, out-of-place utterances from speaker B (e.g., \"Really.\", \"I see.\") are logically inconsistent with B's own speech, but they do not derail the primary, relevant flow of information between the two speakers. The core interaction remains highly relevant.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking between speakers A and B is natural and effective. There are no long, awkward pauses. The overlaps that occur ([[00:16]-[00:17]] and [[00:32]-[00:33]]) are brief (1 second each) and represent natural interruptions where speaker A seeks clarification. These are not prolonged or harmful; in fact, they contribute to a realistic conversational flow. Speaker B handles these interruptions smoothly. While there are several very short, odd interjections from speaker B within their own turns, these do not disrupt the actual back-and-forth between the two participants. The core interaction is fluid and seamless.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/99",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:12]] A: That's really helpful, but could you explain more about how journaling actually helps with rediscovering identity? Like what's the psychological process behind it that makes it so effective for self-discovery?\n[[00:12],[00:22]] B: Journaling works because writing helps organize your thoughts and feelings. When you put things on paper, you can see patterns and truths\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Uh.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Really.\n[[00:21],[00:32]] A: I see what you mean about patterns, but how often should I journal to get real benefits? And should I focus on specific topics each time or just write whatever comes to mind freely?\n[[00:32],[00:42]] B: For best results, try journaling at least three times a week. You can mix structured prompts with free writing - both approaches help. The\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: Uh.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] B: Really.\n[[00:42],[00:52]] A: That makes sense, but what if I get stuck while writing? Sometimes my mind goes blank when I try to think deeply about myself - any tips for overcoming that mental block?\n[[00:52],[01:04]] B: When you feel stuck, start with simple observations. Write about your day or describe objects around you. This gentle approach often leads to deeper thoughts. Remember, there\n[[00:56],[00:57]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:57],[00:58]] B: Cool.\n[[00:59],[00:59]] B: Really.\n[[01:03],[01:14]] A: Okay, but how do I know if I'm making real progress in my self-discovery journey? Are there specific signs I should look for that show I'm getting closer to my true identity?\n[[01:14],[01:31]] B: You'll notice small but meaningful changes over time. Maybe you'll feel clearer about your preferences, or certain activities will feel more authentic. Seeing these shifts means you're making progress, even if it feels slow. The key is to keep going and trust the process.\n[[01:19],[01:20]] B: Mhm.\n[[01:21],[01:22]] B: Uh huh.\n[[01:22],[01:24]] B: Okay,okay.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A initiates the conversation with a clear, specific question about the psychological process of journaling for self-discovery. Speaker B provides a direct and logical answer, explaining that writing helps organize thoughts and identify patterns. Each subsequent turn from Speaker A introduces a relevant and practical follow-up question (e.g., frequency of journaling, overcoming writer's block, measuring progress). Speaker B consistently addresses these questions with relevant, helpful, and coherent advice. The conversation maintains a tight focus on the central topic, with each exchange logically building upon the last.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns; the transitions are immediate and natural. For example, Speaker B begins their response at the exact moment Speaker A finishes their question in every instance (e.g., 00:12, 00:32, 00:52, 01:14). While there are several annotations of overlapping speech (e.g., at [00:15],[00:16] or [00:35],[00:36]), these are all instances of Speaker B using filler words or affirmations (\"Uh\", \"Really\", \"Mhm\") within their own speaking turn. They do not represent two speakers talking over each other and therefore do not disrupt the conversational flow. The turn-taking is smooth and efficient.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/99",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: I've been thinking about starting my own business.\n[[00:03],[00:07]] B: That's a great idea! What kind of business do you want to start?\n[[00:04],[00:06]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:07],[00:15]] A: I'm not really sure yet. I just know that I want to do something on my own. I'm tired of working for other people and not getting\n[[00:10],[00:11]] A: Uh.\n[[00:12],[00:12]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:14],[00:20]] B: Are you thinking of something in the same field you're currently working in, or are you looking to try something completely new?\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Really.\n[[00:21],[00:27]] A: I'm open to both options. Starting your own business is a lot of work. Are you sure you're ready for that?\n[[00:24],[00:25]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:28],[00:34]] B: I'm definitely ready for it. I've been wanting to do this for a long time, and I'm finally going to make it happen.\n[[00:30],[00:31]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:34],[00:38]] A: What do you need to get started? Do you have any ideas?\n[[00:36],[00:37]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:38],[00:54]] B: Right now, I'm just trying to come up with some ideas and figure out what exactly I want to do. Once I have a better idea of that, then I can start putting together a plan. But yeah, I definitely need to do more research and possibly seek advice from experienced entrepreneurs.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:45],[00:46]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:47],[00:49]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:54],[01:00]] A: Sorry to cut in, but have you thought about the financial aspect? Do you have any savings or funding options lined up?\n[[01:01],[01:10]] B: I do have some savings, but I haven't really explored funding options yet. By the way, you mentioned you're tired of not getting ahead. What exactly do you mean by that?",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants an evaluation of a dialogue transcript focusing on Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\n\n1. **Analyze Response Relevance:** I will check for logical consistency and topic coherence.\n * The dialogue starts with speaker A wanting to start a business.\n * Speaker B is supportive and asks follow-up questions.\n * The topic remains \"starting a business\" throughout the entire conversation.\n * At [00:21], speaker A asks speaker B, \"Are you sure you're ready for that?\". This seems like a sudden shift, as if A is now interviewing B.\n * However, speaker B's response at [00:28] (\"I'm definitely ready for it. I've been wanting to do this for a long time...\") clarifies that B *also* has this ambition.\n * The conversation then naturally shifts to discussing B's plans, with A taking on an inquisitive role.\n * At the end [01:01], B skillfully pivots the conversation back to A's initial statement (\"...you mentioned you're tired of not getting ahead...\").\n * This structure is not a logical error; it's a dynamic and collaborative conversation between two people who share a common interest. The focus shifts from A to B and then back towards A. This is highly coherent and logically consistent within the context of a supportive discussion.\n\n2. **Analyze Interactional Fluency:** I will check for extended overlaps and long pauses.\n * **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between turns. The transitions are smooth, with pauses of 1 second or less (e.g., [[00:02],[00:03]], [[00:20],[00:21]]), which is very natural.\n * **Overlaps:**\n * There is a minor overlap from [00:14] to [00:15] where B begins speaking just before A finishes. This is brief and common in engaged conversation.\n * At [00:54], A explicitly interrupts B (\"Sorry to cut in...\"). Acknowledging the interruption in this way is a polite, natural conversational strategy, not a flaw. It shows engagement.\n * Other overlaps are backchannels (\"Really.\", \"Yeah, yeah.\") or self-corrections/fillers (\"Ummm.\"), which are all features of natural, fluent speech.\n * Overall, the fluency is high. The interaction mimics a real, dynamic conversation effectively.\n\n3. **Determine Overall Score:**\n * Response Relevance is excellent. The conversation is coherent and develops logically.\n * Interactional Fluency is excellent. The flow is natural, with no awkward pauses and with overlaps that are characteristic of an engaged discussion.\n * Since both criteria are met to a high standard, the dialogue is Excellent. The score should be 2.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency of this dialogue is excellent. There are no long, disruptive pauses between turns; transitions are quick and natural, typically within a second. The dialogue includes several brief overlaps, which contribute to its natural feel rather than detracting from it. For example, the one-second overlap at [[00:14]-[00:15]] is typical of an eager participant jumping into the conversation. Furthermore, a more significant interruption at [00:54] is handled politely with the phrase \"Sorry to cut in,\" which demonstrates social awareness and maintains a smooth, albeit dynamic, conversational flow. The frequent use of fillers (\"Ummm,\" \"Uh\") and backchannels (\"Mhm,\" \"Yeah, yeah\") further enhances the naturalistic quality of the interaction.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/100",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:08]] A: I was wondering if you could explain how literature and art help with critical thinking skills? Could you give me some clear examples that show this connection in action?\n[[00:09],[00:15]] B: Absolutely! Reading books makes you think deeply about characters and\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: Um.\n[[00:15],[00:27]] A: That sounds interesting, but could you also tell me how literature and art help with solving problems? What are some real situations where these skills would be useful in everyday life?\n[[00:28],[00:44]] B: Sure! When you read stories, you see how characters solve problems, which gives you new ideas. Art makes you think creatively to understand it, just like solving puzzles. These skills help at work, in school, and even when making personal decisions.\n[[00:33],[00:34]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:35],[00:37]] B: Um.\n[[00:38],[00:38]] B: Mhm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance.\n\n1. **A's first turn ([00:00]-[00:08]):** A asks a clear, two-part question about how literature/art help with critical thinking and requests examples.\n2. **B's first turn ([00:09]-[00:15]):** B starts to answer the question directly, beginning with the example of reading books making one think about characters. This is a relevant start.\n3. **A's second turn ([00:15]-[00:27]):** A interrupts B, but acknowledges the start of B's answer (\"That sounds interesting...\"). A then shifts the focus slightly from \"critical thinking\" to the related concept of \"problem-solving\" and asks for real-life applications. This is a logical and coherent redirection of the topic.\n4. **B's second turn ([00:28]-[00:44]):** B successfully adapts to A's redirected question. B explains how both literature (character problem-solving) and art (creative interpretation) help with problem-solving skills and provides concrete areas where this is useful (\"at work, in school, and even when making personal decisions\"). This response is highly relevant and directly answers A's second question.\n\nOverall, the dialogue maintains strong topic coherence. Even with the interruption and topic shift, the conversation flows logically, and the final answer is directly relevant to the question posed.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, focusing on pauses and overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:** There are short, 1-second pauses between turns A and B ([00:08]-[00:09]) and B and A ([00:27]-[00:28]). These are natural transition times in a conversation and do not harm fluency.\n2. **Overlaps/Interruptions:** There is a significant interruption at [00:15]. Speaker A begins speaking at the exact moment Speaker B finishes a clause, cutting B off mid-sentence. A then holds the floor for 12 seconds. While this is an aggressive interruption, it serves to redirect the conversation. The dialogue does not break down; there is no extended period of both speakers talking over one another, nor is there an awkward pause afterward. B yields the floor and the conversation continues smoothly on the new track. The small filler words from B (\"Um\", \"Okay,okay\", \"Mhm\") are normal speech disfluencies and do not negatively impact the interaction.\n\nBecause the interruption, while present, is handled smoothly and the conversation recovers immediately, the overall interactional fluency remains natural and effective. There are no prolonged, harmful overlaps or pauses.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/101",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:08]] A: Could you write me a fun script for a new episode of your favorite show? I'd love to hear what kind of adventure you'd create for the main characters.\n[[00:08],[00:18]] B: Absolutely! Picture this - Joey finally gets his hands on that special ring again, but in typical Joey fashion, he accidentally\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: Right.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Uh.\n[[00:17],[00:27]] A: Wait, before you continue, could you remind me if Joey ever actually got that engagement ring back in the original series? I'm trying to remember how that whole situation played out for him.\n[[00:27],[00:35]] B: Oh yeah, that was hilarious! After lots of crazy attempts, the whole gang helped him break into his old apartment.\n[[00:30],[00:30]] B: Cool.\n[[00:32],[00:33]] B: Uh.\n[[00:34],[00:44]] A: That sounds exactly like something that would happen to him! So in your new episode idea, how would the friends react when Joey tells them about losing the ring again?\n[[00:44],[00:57]] B: Well Chandler would definitely make sarcastic comments, Monica would freak out about the plumbing, and Ross would try to come up with some overly complicated scientific solution. Meanwhile Phoebe would probably suggest just stealing a new ring!\n[[00:50],[00:51]] B: That's cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B begins to answer speaker A's initial request for a fun script. Speaker A then interrupts with a relevant clarifying question about the show's original plot, which Speaker B answers accurately and appropriately. Speaker A then smoothly transitions the conversation back to the original topic (the new script idea), and Speaker B continues the story as requested. All turns are logically connected and maintain topic coherence throughout the interaction.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns. The dialogue flows smoothly. There are a few instances of overlap, but they are either very brief backchannels (\"Right.\", \"Cool.\") or functional interruptions that are natural in an engaged conversation (e.g., A interrupting B at [00:17] to ask a clarifying question). None of the overlaps are extended or disruptive to the point of being harmful. The turn-taking feels natural and efficient.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/101",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: Hey, Dad. Do you know of any job openings that I could apply for?\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Sure.\n[[00:05],[00:14]] B: Let me see, there might be something at the library. They are always looking for people to help out with the summer reading\n[[00:08],[00:09]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:10],[00:11]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:13],[00:21]] A: Oh, that sounds interesting! Do you think they might have flexible hours? I need something that won't interfere with my classes.\n[[00:16],[00:16]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:18],[00:18]] A: Really.\n[[00:22],[00:34]] B: Yes, I believe they do offer flexible hours, especially since it's a summer program. I'm not sure about the pay, but it's probably around the standard rate for similar positions, though you might want to double-check.\n[[00:26],[00:26]] B: Uh.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:35],[00:41]] A: Do you think it's minimum wage? Because as long as it's around that, I think it would work for me.\n[[00:38],[00:39]] A: Mm.\n[[00:43],[00:46]] B: Yes, it's likely minimum wage. That's not too bad, right?\n[[00:44],[00:45]] B: Right.\n[[00:48],[00:53]] A: Not at all. I'll definitely look into that then. Thanks, Dad!",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and coherence of the dialogue.\n1. **A's initial question [[00:00],[00:03]]**: A asks for job openings.\n2. **B's response [[00:05],[00:14]]**: B provides a relevant suggestion (a job at the library) and specific details (summer reading program). This is a direct and helpful answer.\n3. **A's follow-up [[00:13],[00:21]]**: A asks about flexible hours, which is a logical and relevant concern for a student seeking a job.\n4. **B's response [[00:22],[00:34]]**: B directly answers the question about flexible hours and provides additional relevant information about pay, anticipating A's next likely question.\n5. **A's further question [[00:35],[00:41]]**: A asks for clarification on the pay (minimum wage), which directly follows from B's previous statement.\n6. **B's confirmation [[00:43],[00:46]]**: B confirms it's likely minimum wage.\n7. **A's conclusion [[00:48],[00:53]]**: A confirms this is acceptable and concludes the conversation logically.\n\nThe entire conversation is coherent, with each turn logically following the previous one. The topic is maintained throughout. The responses are all relevant and contribute to the goal of the conversation.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, specifically looking for extended overlaps and long pauses.\n\n1. **Pauses between turns**:\n * `[[00:03],[00:05]]`: A 2-second pause. This is a natural pause as B thinks of an answer.\n * `[[00:21],[00:22]]`: A 1-second pause. Very brief and natural.\n * `[[00:34],[00:35]]`: A 1-second pause. Natural.\n * `[[00:41],[00:43]]`: A 2-second pause. Acceptable.\n * `[[00:46],[00:48]]`: A 2-second pause. Acceptable.\n There are no prolonged or awkward pauses between speaker turns.\n\n2. **Overlaps between speakers**:\n * `[[00:13],[00:14]]`: There is a very brief overlap where A starts speaking (\"Oh, that sounds...\") as B finishes their sentence (\"...summer reading\"). This is a common and natural type of overlap, indicating engagement, not a disruptive interruption.\n * The other listed overlaps (`[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Sure.`, `[[00:08],[00:09]] B: Mm hmm.`, etc.) are not overlaps between different speakers. They are self-corrections or fillers spoken by the person who already has the floor. They do not disrupt the flow of the conversation between the two participants.\n\nThe conversation flows smoothly without any disruptive overlaps or long, unnatural pauses.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/101",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:09]] A: Could you walk me through the steps for making apple and carrot slaw in simple terms? I'm hosting a barbecue this weekend and need something refreshing.\n[[00:09],[00:15]] B: Of course! First, you'll want to shred two apples and two carrots.\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: Cool.\n[[00:14],[00:20]] A: Wait, should I peel the apples and carrots first or leave the skins on for extra nutrients? I want to keep it healthy.\n[[00:21],[00:26]] B: Great question! Leaving the skins on adds fiber and nutrients, so I'd recommend just\n[[00:23],[00:24]] B: Sure.\n[[00:25],[00:30]] A: How much mayonnaise should I use? I don't want it to be too heavy since it's for a summer dish.\n[[00:31],[00:40]] B: About two tablespoons should be enough to coat everything lightly. You can also substitute Greek yogurt if you prefer\n[[00:34],[00:34]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:35],[00:37]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:39],[00:44]] A: Would lime juice work instead of lemon? I have some fresh limes on hand right now.\n[[00:44],[00:53]] B: Definitely! Lime juice will give it a nice tangy twist. Just use about the same amount—one to\n[[00:47],[00:47]] B: Really.\n[[00:48],[00:49]] B: Uh.\n[[00:52],[00:58]] A: This sounds delicious! What if I want to add some extra crunch? Would nuts or seeds work well in this slaw?\n[[00:58],[01:10]] B: Absolutely! Chopped walnuts or almonds add great texture. Sunflower seeds or pepitas would also be tasty if you want\n[[01:02],[01:03]] B: Hmm.\n[[01:04],[01:04]] B: Cool.\n[[01:05],[01:06]] B: Uh.\n[[01:09],[01:14]] A: How far in advance can I prepare this slaw? I'd like to make it ahead if possible to save time.\n[[01:14],[01:23]] B: You can prep it a few hours ahead, but add the nuts just before serving so they stay crunchy. The flavors actually improve if it chills for about an hour first!\n[[01:17],[01:17]] B: Ummm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and logical consistency of the conversation.\n\n1. **A's initial question:** A asks for a simple recipe for apple and carrot slaw.\n2. **B's first response:** B begins with the first step, \"shred two apples and two carrots,\" which is a direct and relevant start to the instructions.\n3. **A's follow-up questions:** Throughout the dialogue, A asks specific and logical follow-up questions about the recipe: whether to peel the ingredients, the amount of mayonnaise, substituting lime for lemon, adding extra crunch, and preparing it in advance.\n4. **B's answers:** B answers each of A's questions directly and helpfully. B confirms that leaving skins on is good, suggests a specific amount of mayonnaise with an alternative, agrees that lime juice is a good substitute, provides ideas for adding crunch, and gives clear instructions on making the slaw ahead of time.\n\nThe conversation maintains perfect topic coherence, with every turn logically following the previous one. All responses are relevant and contribute constructively to the goal of explaining the recipe.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:** I will check the time between the end of one speaker's turn and the start of the next.\n * [[00:20]] A -> [[00:21]] B: There is a 1-second pause. This is a natural, brief pause and not considered harmful.\n * [[00:30]] A -> [[00:31]] B: There is another 1-second pause. This is also natural.\n * All other turn transitions have no pause or a brief overlap. There are no long or awkward pauses in the dialogue.\n\n2. **Overlaps:** I will check for moments where both speakers are talking at the same time.\n * [[00:14],[00:15]]: A begins speaking one second before B finishes.\n * [[00:25],[00:26]]: A begins speaking one second before B finishes.\n * [[00:39],[00:40]]: A begins speaking one second before B finishes.\n * [[00:52],[00:53]]: A begins speaking one second before B finishes.\n * [[01:09],[01:10]]: A begins speaking one second before B finishes.\n\nAll these overlaps are very short (1 second) and are characteristic of a highly engaged and natural conversation where the listener is eager to ask their next question. They are not extended or disruptive. The frequent single-speaker overlaps from B (e.g., \"Cool,\" \"Mhm,\" \"Uh\") are typical backchanneling or filler words that do not interfere with the flow of the conversation. The interaction is smooth and fluid.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/102",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:09]] A: Could you walk me through converting a Pages document to PDF or Word format step by step, making sure to include all the important details I might need?\n[[00:09],[00:17]] B: Sure thing! First, open your document in Pages. Then go to the File menu at the top and choose\n[[00:12],[00:14]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:16],[00:24]] A: Wait, before we go further, could you clarify where exactly the File menu is located? I'm not very familiar with the Pages interface yet.\n[[00:24],[00:33]] B: No problem! The File menu is in the top-left corner of your screen, right next to the Pages menu. It's the\n[[00:27],[00:28]] B: Sure.\n[[00:29],[00:29]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:32],[00:40]] A: Okay, got it! Now after I click Export To, what kind of settings should I pay attention to before saving the file?\n[[00:40],[00:50]] B: Great question! For PDFs, you can adjust image quality and add passwords. For Word, you can choose older versions for\n[[00:44],[00:45]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:49],[00:55]] A: What if I want to make sure the formatting stays exactly the same when converting to Word? Any special tips for that?\n[[00:55],[01:03]] B: Definitely! Pick the newest Word format option to minimize changes. Also, check the \"Preserve Layout\" box if it's\n[[00:57],[00:58]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:59],[01:00]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[01:02],[01:10]] A: That makes sense. One last thing—where does the exported file usually save by default, and can I change that location easily?\n[[01:10],[01:19]] B: By default it goes to your Downloads folder, but you can pick any location. Just click the Where dropdown in the save window to choose a different spot before exporting.\n[[01:13],[01:14]] B: Uh.\n[[01:15],[01:16]] B: Okay,okay.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue based on response relevance.\n\n1. **A's initial question ([[00:00],[00:09]]):** A clearly asks for a step-by-step guide on converting a Pages document. This sets the topic.\n2. **B's response ([[00:09],[00:17]]):** B begins the step-by-step guide exactly as requested. This is a directly relevant response.\n3. **A's clarification question ([[00:16],[00:24]]):** A interrupts to ask for the location of the \"File menu\". This is a relevant and logical question within the context of the instructions.\n4. **B's clarification answer ([[00:24],[00:33]]):** B answers the specific question about the File menu's location. This is a perfectly relevant and helpful response.\n5. **Subsequent turns:** The rest of the dialogue follows this pattern. A asks a logical next-step question (about settings, formatting, save location), and B provides a direct, relevant answer. The conversation remains entirely focused on the initial request.\n\nConclusion: The responses are consistently relevant, logically coherent, and maintain the topic throughout the interaction.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue based on interactional fluency, specifically looking for extended overlaps and long pauses.\n\n1. **Pauses:** I will check the timestamps for any significant gaps between turns.\n * [00:09] A ends, [00:09] B starts. No pause.\n * [00:17] B ends, [00:16] A starts. Overlap, no pause.\n * [00:24] A ends, [00:24] B starts. No pause.\n * [00:33] B ends, [00:32] A starts. Overlap, no pause.\n * [00:40] A ends, [00:40] B starts. No pause.\n * [00:50] B ends, [00:49] A starts. Overlap, no pause.\n * [00:55] A ends, [00:55] B starts. No pause.\n * [01:03] B ends, [01:02] A starts. Overlap, no pause.\n * [01:10] A ends, [01:10] B starts. No pause.\n There are no long pauses at all. The turn-taking is immediate.\n\n2. **Overlaps:** I will check where speaker turns overlap.\n * Overlap 1: [[00:16],[00:17]] A starts speaking one second before B finishes. This is a very brief and natural interruption to ask for clarification.\n * Overlap 2: [[00:32],[00:33]] A starts speaking one second before B finishes. This is a natural \"latching\" turn, indicating A is ready to move on.\n * Overlap 3: [[00:49],[00:50]] A starts speaking one second before B finishes. Another natural and brief overlap to ask the next question.\n * Overlap 4: [[01:02],[01:03]] A starts speaking one second before B finishes. This is also a brief, natural overlap.\n\nConclusion: The conversation flows very smoothly. There are no disruptive long pauses. The overlaps are brief (1 second) and functional, typical of a natural, engaged conversation where one person is guiding the other. The fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/102",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: I was just reading the paper and I can't believe all the things that are happening in the world!\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:05],[00:06]] B: What do you mean?\n[[00:06],[00:14]] A: Well, did you know that there's a civil war going on in Syria? And that Russia is getting involved? It's so\n[[00:08],[00:09]] A: Um.\n[[00:10],[00:11]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:13],[00:18]] B: Sorry to interrupt, but do you know why Russia is getting involved in the Syrian conflict?\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Mm.\n[[00:18],[00:35]] A: Russia has strategic interests in Syria, but I was also going to mention that it's just so sad. I can't imagine what those people are going through. And then there's this Zika virus outbreak in Brazil. Have you heard about the measures they are taking to control it?\n[[00:23],[00:24]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] A: Uh.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:35],[00:44]] B: Yes, I have. That sounds really scary. Apparently it can cause birth defects in babies if their mothers get infected while they're pregnant.\n[[00:38],[00:39]] B: Um.\n[[00:40],[00:41]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:45],[00:57]] A: Yeah, I read that too. And then there's all this political drama going on in the United States right now with the presidential election coming up. It's just so crazy! The whole world is such a mess right now!\n[[00:48],[00:50]] A: Okay,okay.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains a high level of relevance and coherence. Speaker A introduces the broad topic of \"things happening in the world\" and provides specific examples (Syrian war, Zika virus, US election). Speaker B's responses are directly related to A's points. For instance, when A mentions Russia's involvement in Syria, B asks a relevant clarifying question. When A brings up the Zika virus, B adds a pertinent detail about its effects. The conversation progresses logically from one related world event to another, all under the initial theme set by speaker A. Each turn builds upon the last, creating a coherent and logical discussion.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good and natural. There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns that would indicate a breakdown in the conversation. The one-second gaps between turns are typical of a normal conversational rhythm. There is a noticeable overlap from [00:13] to [00:14] where B interrupts A. However, B explicitly acknowledges this by saying, \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which makes the interruption polite and a natural part of the interaction rather than a flaw. Other brief overlaps consist of fillers or backchanneling, which are also characteristic of fluent, natural dialogue. There are no extended, competitive overlaps that disrupt the flow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/102",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Hey, man, have a seat!\n[[00:01],[00:03]] B: Thanks.\n[[00:04],[00:06]] A: You're welcome. So, what's up?\n[[00:07],[00:09]] B: Not much. Just hanging out.\n[[00:11],[00:13]] A: Cool. So, do you like whoopee cushions?\n[[00:15],[00:19]] B: Uh, I don't know. I've never really thought\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:18],[00:27]] A: Oh, you should! They're hilarious! Every time I sit on one, it makes this really funny noise and I can't help but laugh hysterically.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] A: Cool.\n[[00:23],[00:24]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:28],[00:30]] B: Yeah, that does sound pretty funny.\n[[00:32],[00:40]] A: I know, right? I just set one up on my chair and I'm waiting for someone to sit on it so I can get a good laugh out of it. It's going to be epic!\n[[00:34],[00:35]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:41],[00:44]] B: Wait, did you put it on the chair I'm sitting on right now?\n[[00:42],[00:43]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:46],[00:51]] A: No, no, don't worry! I wouldn't do that to you. We're friends, remember?\n[[00:48],[00:49]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:53],[00:56]] B: Yeah, we are. So, what else is new?",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation flows logically from a general greeting to a specific, albeit quirky, topic of whoopee cushions. Speaker B's responses are consistently relevant to Speaker A's statements and questions. For example, when A brings up the prank they set up, B's immediate and concerned question, \"Wait, did you put it on the chair I'm sitting on right now?\", is a perfectly logical and coherent reaction. A's reassurance and B's subsequent topic change are also natural and maintain the coherence of the interaction.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long, disruptive pauses between turns; the pauses that exist (e.g., between [00:09] and [00:11]) are brief (2 seconds) and fall within the range of natural conversational pacing. There are no extended, harmful overlaps where speakers talk over each other. The noted overlaps (e.g., [[00:17],[00:18]], [[00:21],[00:22]]) are instances of a speaker making a brief utterance or backchannel during their own turn, which does not disrupt the flow of the dialogue between the two participants. The turn-taking is smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/103",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: Could you tell me which festival in Andhra Pradesh gets people the most excited and involves the whole community in celebrations? I'm really curious about their most important cultural event.\n[[00:11],[00:18]] B: Oh, definitely Ugadi! It's the Telugu New Year and everyone goes all out with decorations,\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:15],[00:15]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:17],[00:25]] A: Wait, before you go on, could you explain what makes Ugadi so special compared to other festivals? Like what are the unique traditions that set it apart?\n[[00:26],[00:38]] B: Great question! What makes Ugadi unique is the special six-flavored dish called Ugadi pachadi. It represents life's different experiences—sweet, sour,\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: Uh.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Um.\n[[00:33],[00:35]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:37],[00:46]] A: That sounds fascinating! But I've heard Pongal is celebrated there too—how does that fit in since it's more famous in Tamil Nadu?\n[[00:46],[00:55]] B: You're spot on! Pongal is bigger in Tamil Nadu, but some Andhra farmers celebrate it too as a harvest festival. The\n[[00:50],[00:51]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:55],[01:03]] A: Got it! So for someone visiting Andhra Pradesh, which festival would give them the most authentic cultural experience with music and local traditions?\n[[01:03],[01:17]] B: Hands down Ugadi! You'll see colorful street processions, traditional Kuchipudi dances, and hear folk songs everywhere. The energy is incredible—it's like the whole state throws one big New Year's party!\n[[01:07],[01:08]] B: Hmm.\n[[01:09],[01:10]] B: Uh huh.\n[[01:11],[01:12]] B: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and coherence of the dialogue.\n\n1. **A's initial question ([[00:00],[00:10]]):** A asks for the most exciting, community-involved festival in Andhra Pradesh. This is a clear and specific opening.\n2. **B's first response ([[00:11],[00:18]]):** B directly answers with \"Ugadi\" and starts to explain why. This is highly relevant.\n3. **A's follow-up question ([[00:17],[00:25]]):** A interrupts to ask for specific details that make Ugadi unique. This is a logical and coherent follow-up, showing active listening.\n4. **B's second response ([[00:26],[00:38]]):** B answers the specific question by highlighting the unique tradition of \"Ugadi pachadi.\" This is a perfectly relevant and informative answer.\n5. **A's next question ([[00:37],[00:46]]):** A introduces a related festival, Pongal, and asks for a comparison. This demonstrates engagement and builds upon the topic coherently.\n6. **B's third response ([[00:46],[00:55]]):** B correctly identifies Pongal's primary region but clarifies its celebration in Andhra, directly addressing A's question. The response is relevant and accurate.\n7. **A's final question ([[00:55],[01:03]]):** A seeks a conclusive recommendation for a visitor, summarizing the conversation's goal. This is a logical final query.\n8. **B's final response ([[01:03],[01:17]]):** B provides a clear recommendation (\"Hands down Ugadi\") and supports it with vivid examples, effectively concluding the dialogue and answering A's final question.\n\nOverall, the conversation is logically structured, and all responses are directly relevant to the questions asked. The topic remains coherent throughout the interaction.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, focusing on pauses and overlaps.\n\n* **Pauses:** There are no prolonged pauses between turns. The transitions are quick and natural (e.g., a 1-second pause between [[00:10]] and [[00:11]]). The flow is continuous.\n* **Overlaps:**\n * There is a brief, 1-second overlap between [[00:17]] and [[00:18]] where A interrupts B. This is a natural conversational interruption (\"Wait, before you go on...\") used to seek clarification and is not harmful to the flow.\n * There is another brief, 1-second overlap between [[00:37]] and [[00:38]] as A begins their question just as B is finishing their sentence. This is typical of an engaged, fast-paced conversation and does not cause any confusion.\n * The other annotations for B (e.g., [[00:13],[00:14]] \"Okay,okay.\", [[00:29],[00:30]] \"Uh.\") are self-talk or fillers within B's own speaking turn. They are not overlaps with speaker A and represent natural speech patterns, not fluency issues.\n\nThe interaction is very fluid. The back-and-forth is smooth, and the brief overlaps contribute to a natural, conversational feel rather than hindering it. There are no awkward silences or disruptive interruptions.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/104",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: Could you tell me more about the shops and residents of Maplewood? I'd love to know what kind of businesses are in town and what the local people are like, since they seem so important to the story's atmosphere.\n[[00:11],[00:20]] B: Maplewood has charming little shops that give the town its cozy feel. There's Baker's Delight with\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Mm.\n[[00:20],[00:31]] A: That sounds wonderful! Could you describe some of the regular customers at these shops and how they interact with each other? I'm curious about the social dynamics in this seemingly perfect small town.\n[[00:32],[00:56]] B: Mrs. Henderson from the flower shop always buys two croissants every morning, sharing one with old Mr. Jenkins who sits on the bench outside. The high school kids crowd the soda fountain after school, while the farmers stop by for coffee before dawn. Everyone seems happy, but watch closely and you'll notice how conversations stop when strangers walk by.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] B: Right.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: I see.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B directly answers Speaker A's initial question about the shops and residents of Maplewood by providing a specific example of a shop (\"Baker's Delight\"). When Speaker A follows up with a more detailed question about the customers and their social interactions, Speaker B provides a rich, descriptive answer that not only lists different types of customers but also adds a layer of intrigue (\"conversations stop when strangers walk by\"), which directly addresses A's curiosity about the \"seemingly perfect small town.\" The conversation is coherent and logically progresses from a general topic to a more specific one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the transitions are smooth and immediate. For example, Speaker B begins responding at the exact moment Speaker A finishes their questions at both [00:11] and [00:20]. The overlaps noted in the transcript ([[00:14],[00:15]], [[00:16],[00:17]], etc.) are all self-overlaps from Speaker B, likely serving as affirmations or thinking-aloud fillers during their own turn. They do not interrupt Speaker A or disrupt the flow of the conversation between the two participants. Therefore, the dialogue feels natural and fluid.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/104",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:15]] A: That's really helpful, but could you explain exactly how long I should hold each pose and whether I should do them right before my speech or earlier in the day? Also, do these poses work better when done alone or can I do them with an audience watching?\n[[00:15],[00:24]] B: Great questions! You should hold each pose for about two minutes to get the full benefit. It's best to do them about fifteen minutes before\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:23],[00:34]] A: I've heard some people say power poses don't actually work - what scientific evidence supports these techniques and are there any studies showing they make a real difference for public speaking specifically?\n[[00:35],[00:46]] B: There's actually solid research behind this! A famous Harvard study showed power poses increase testosterone and lower cortisol. While some debate exists, many speakers\n[[00:38],[00:39]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:40],[00:40]] B: Really.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] B: Sure.\n[[00:46],[00:56]] A: Speaking of breathing techniques, could you recommend some simple exercises to control nervous breathing during speeches? I tend to breathe too fast when I'm anxious and it affects my voice.\n[[00:57],[01:07]] B: Absolutely! Try this easy four-four-eight method: inhale for four seconds, hold for four, then exhale for eight. Another good one is\n[[01:00],[01:01]] B: Hmm.\n[[01:01],[01:04]] B: Um.\n[[01:06],[01:18]] A: Before we move on, could you clarify whether I should do the breathing exercises while standing or sitting, and should I keep my eyes open or closed during them? Also how many times should I repeat each cycle?\n[[01:18],[01:37]] B: Do them however you'll be speaking - standing if you'll stand, sitting if you'll sit. Eyes can be open or closed, whatever feels natural. Repeat each cycle five to ten times before speaking. The more you practice, the more automatic it becomes when nervous.\n[[01:24],[01:25]] B: Ummm.\n[[01:26],[01:27]] B: Ummm.\n[[01:28],[01:28]] B: Okay,okay.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and logical consistency of the dialogue.\n\n1. **A's first turn to B's first response:** A asks for specifics on power poses (duration, timing, context). B provides direct answers to duration (\"two minutes\") and timing (\"fifteen minutes before\"). The response is highly relevant and directly addresses A's questions.\n2. **A's second turn to B's second response:** A challenges the scientific validity of power poses. B responds by citing a relevant Harvard study and acknowledging the debate, which is a direct and appropriate answer.\n3. **A's third turn to B's third response:** A naturally transitions the topic from physical poses to breathing techniques, another method for managing anxiety. B responds by providing a specific, relevant breathing exercise (\"four-four-eight method\").\n4. **A's fourth turn to B's fourth response:** A asks for clarification on the breathing exercise (posture, eyes, repetitions). B provides clear, direct answers to all of A's clarifying questions.\n\nOverall, the dialogue is exceptionally coherent. Each turn logically follows the previous one, and the responses are consistently on-topic and directly address the questions asked. The conversation flows logically from one related sub-topic to the next.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:** I will check the time gaps between the end of one speaker's turn and the start of the next.\n * A ([00:15]) -> B ([00:15]): 0-second pause.\n * B ([00:24]) -> A ([00:23]): 1-second overlap, not a pause.\n * A ([00:34]) -> B ([00:35]): 1-second pause.\n * B ([00:46]) -> A ([00:46]): 0-second pause.\n * A ([00:56]) -> B ([00:57]): 1-second pause.\n * B ([01:07]) -> A ([01:06]): 1-second overlap, not a pause.\n * A ([01:18]) -> B ([01:18]): 0-second pause.\n There are no long pauses between turns. The turn-taking is immediate and fluid.\n\n2. **Overlaps:** I will check for overlapping speech.\n * [00:23]-[00:24]: A begins speaking one second before B finishes. This is a very brief and natural overlap, typical of engaged conversation.\n * [01:06]-[01:07]: A begins speaking one second before B finishes. This is another brief, natural overlap, used to interject a clarifying question.\n * The other listed overlaps (e.g., [00:18]-[00:19], [00:38]-[00:39]) are instances of Speaker B making short, filler-like utterances (\"That's cool,\" \"Ummm\") during their own turn. These are not interactional overlaps between speakers and do not disrupt the flow of conversation.\n\nConclusion: The dialogue exhibits excellent fluency. There are no disruptive, extended overlaps or long pauses. The turn-taking is smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/105",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: What are the most famous art galleries in Florence that I should definitely visit during my trip? I'm particularly interested in Renaissance art and want to make the most of my time there.\n[[00:11],[00:24]] B: Florence has several amazing art galleries. The top ones are Uffizi Gallery, Accademia Gallery, and Palazzo Pitti. They all feature incredible Renaissance masterpieces\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Uh.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Um.\n[[00:23],[00:34]] A: Since I only have limited time in Florence, which gallery would you recommend I visit first to see the most important Renaissance artworks? I'd love to see works by Botticelli and Michelangelo.\n[[00:35],[00:49]] B: I'd suggest starting with the Uffizi Gallery. It has the best collection of Renaissance art, including Botticelli's Birth of Venus. It's right in the city center and you'll see masterpieces by many famous artists.\n[[00:39],[00:41]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:42],[00:43]] B: I see.\n[[00:44],[00:45]] B: Okay,okay.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user is asking for famous art galleries in Florence, with a specific interest in Renaissance art. The system responds by suggesting three highly relevant galleries: the Uffizi, Accademia, and Palazzo Pitti, confirming they house Renaissance masterpieces. The user then follows up with a logical question, asking for a priority recommendation given limited time and a specific interest in Botticelli and Michelangelo. The system provides a perfect recommendation, suggesting the Uffizi Gallery, explaining why it's the best choice (best collection of Renaissance art), and specifically mentioning a key work by Botticelli as requested. The dialogue is topically coherent and logically consistent from start to finish.\n\n\n\nI will analyze the fluency by checking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n- **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between turns. The pause between A's first turn ending at [00:10] and B's response at [00:11] is only one second. The pause between A's second turn ending at [00:34] and B's response at [00:35] is also just one second. These are natural and do not disrupt the flow.\n- **Overlaps:** There is a minor, one-second overlap where A begins speaking at [00:23] while B is finishing their turn at [00:24]. This is very brief and typical of natural, smooth conversation, rather than a disruptive interruption.\nThe interaction is very fluent with no harmful pauses or overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/106",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: The Great Rift Valley sounds really important for human history. Could you explain in simpler terms how exactly the geography helped early humans survive and develop civilizations there?\n[[00:12],[00:17]] B: The Great Rift Valley had perfect conditions for early humans. The climate\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Really.\n[[00:17],[00:26]] A: That makes sense about the good living conditions. But I'm curious, what were some of the biggest challenges early civilizations faced in the Great Rift Valley despite these advantages?\n[[00:27],[00:48]] B: Even with good resources, there were tough challenges. The terrain made travel difficult in some areas, isolating communities. Droughts sometimes occurred, threatening crops and water supplies. Different groups also competed for the best land and resources, which could lead to conflicts between early settlements.\n[[00:34],[00:35]] B: Really.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: Mm.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] B: Mm hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance.\n\n1. **A's first turn to B's first response:** Speaker A asks for a simple explanation of how the Great Rift Valley's geography helped early humans. Speaker B begins to answer directly, mentioning \"perfect conditions\" and \"the climate.\" This is a relevant start to an answer.\n2. **B's first response to A's second turn:** Speaker A acknowledges B's point and asks a logical follow-up question about the challenges, building on the initial topic. This shows topic coherence.\n3. **A's second turn to B's second response:** Speaker B provides a detailed and relevant answer to A's question about challenges, listing difficult terrain, droughts, and competition.\n\nThe conversation is logically consistent and stays on topic. Both speakers' contributions are relevant to the preceding turn.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, specifically looking for extended overlaps and long pauses.\n\n1. **Pauses:**\n * [00:11] - [00:12]: A 1-second pause between A's question and B's answer. This is a natural turn-taking gap.\n * [00:17]: No pause between B's turn and A's turn. The transition is immediate and smooth.\n * [00:26] - [00:27]: A 1-second pause between A's question and B's answer. This is also a natural pause.\n * There are no long, awkward pauses that would disrupt the flow.\n\n2. **Overlaps:**\n * [00:14]-[00:15]: B says \"Really\" while B is already speaking. This is a brief, one-second self-interruption or affirmation, not a competitive overlap with speaker A. It does not disrupt the flow of information.\n * The interjections from B ([00:34]-[00:38]) are also self-interruptions and do not overlap with speaker A.\n\nThe interaction flows smoothly with natural turn-taking and no disruptive overlaps or long pauses.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/106",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: That's interesting about how AR helps in construction and retail, but could you explain more specifically how factory technicians benefit from those virtual repair guides you mentioned?\n[[00:10],[00:23]] B: Absolutely! The virtual guides show technicians step-by-step instructions right over the actual equipment they're fixing. This means they don't have to keep looking away\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Right.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Uh.\n[[00:22],[00:33]] A: That makes sense, but what about the cost of implementing AR in factories? Wouldn't the equipment and training be too expensive for smaller manufacturers to adopt this technology?\n[[00:34],[00:47]] B: Good question! While there is an initial investment, AR solutions are becoming more affordable. Many systems now work with regular tablets or smart glasses. The long-term savings\n[[00:40],[00:41]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:46],[00:53]] A: Speaking of smart glasses, how comfortable and practical are they for workers who need to wear them all day during their shifts?\n[[00:54],[01:04]] B: Modern AR glasses are much lighter and more comfortable than earlier models. Many now look like regular safety glasses and include features\n[[00:57],[00:58]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:59],[00:59]] B: I see.\n[[01:03],[01:12]] A: That's reassuring, but what about data security when using these connected devices in industrial settings? Couldn't they create new vulnerabilities for companies?\n[[01:13],[01:33]] B: You're right to consider security. Most enterprise AR systems include strong encryption and can operate on private networks. Companies should work with IT teams to implement proper safeguards, just like with any workplace technology that handles sensitive data. The benefits usually outweigh the risks when properly managed.\n[[01:19],[01:20]] B: Ummm.\n[[01:21],[01:21]] B: Um.\n[[01:22],[01:23]] B: Um.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each turn directly addresses the previous one, maintaining a clear and logical progression of the topic. Speaker A consistently asks relevant and insightful questions about the practical application of AR technology (benefits for technicians, cost, comfort of hardware, data security). Speaker B provides direct, informative, and on-topic answers to each of A's questions. The conversation is coherent and easy to follow, with each speaker building upon the other's contribution.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking between the speakers is smooth and natural. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the pauses that do exist (e.g., between 00:33 and 00:34) are very brief (one second) and typical of natural conversation. There are a couple of very short, one-second overlaps (e.g., A starts at 00:46 while B finishes at 00:47), but these are minor and represent natural turn-taking rather than disruptive interruptions. The dialogue flows smoothly without any significant fluency issues. The additional utterances listed for speaker B (like \"Mhm,\" \"Right,\" \"Ummm\") are filler words within their own turn and do not constitute disruptive overlaps with speaker A.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/106",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:09]] A: That's really helpful, but could you break down how the metaphor and personification specifically enhance the imagery in that line about threading silver and pearls?\n[[00:09],[00:20]] B: Absolutely! The metaphor works by comparing lightning to silver threads, making the flashes seem delicate and shimmering. The personification adds\n[[00:12],[00:14]] B: Really.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:18],[00:29]] A: I'm still a bit confused about how the poet blends sound and visual imagery in the first line we discussed - could you explain that connection more clearly for me?\n[[00:29],[00:41]] B: Sure thing! The poet mixes senses beautifully - the \"rainy music\" combines the sound of rain with the visual of mist. It's like the music\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:40],[00:47]] A: That makes sense, but could you give me some examples of other poems that use similar techniques to blend senses like this?\n[[00:48],[00:56]] B: Oh definitely! Keats does this often - like in \"Ode to a Nightingale\" where he describes the bird's song as \"light-winged\n[[00:50],[00:51]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:52],[00:53]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:56],[01:04]] A: While we're on that topic, could you explain how these sensory blending techniques differ from regular metaphors we see in everyday language?\n[[01:05],[01:18]] B: Great question! Regular metaphors compare two things directly, but these poetic ones mix senses in unexpected ways. Like saying music \"melts\" - that's not just comparing,\n[[01:09],[01:09]] B: Really.\n[[01:10],[01:11]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[01:12],[01:13]] B: Really.\n[[01:17],[01:24]] A: This has been super helpful - could you summarize the key points about how these techniques work together in both lines we've discussed?\n[[01:25],[01:43]] B: Of course! In both cases, the poet uses layered techniques - metaphors make abstract things concrete, while personification adds movement. The sensory blending makes you experience the scene with multiple senses at once, creating really powerful, memorable images.\n[[01:30],[01:32]] B: Mm.\n[[01:34],[01:34]] B: That's cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance.\n\n1. **A's first question ([00:00]-[00:09])**: Asks for a breakdown of metaphor and personification.\n2. **B's first response ([00:09]-[00:20])**: Directly addresses the question by explaining the metaphor (lightning as silver threads) and starting to explain the personification. This is highly relevant and coherent.\n3. **A's second question ([00:18]-[00:29])**: Asks for clarification on the blending of sound and visual imagery.\n4. **B's second response ([00:29]-[00:41])**: Directly answers by explaining how \"rainy music\" combines the senses of sound and sight. This is a relevant and logical continuation.\n5. **A's third question ([00:40]-[00:47])**: Asks for examples from other poems.\n6. **B's third response ([00:48]-[00:56])**: Provides a perfect example from Keats' \"Ode to a Nightingale,\" which is directly relevant to the topic of blending senses.\n7. **A's fourth question ([00:56]-[01:04])**: Asks for the difference between these poetic techniques and everyday metaphors.\n8. **B's fourth response ([01:05]-[01:18])**: Clearly explains the distinction, which is a logical and relevant answer.\n9. **A's fifth question ([01:17]-[01:24])**: Asks for a summary of the points discussed.\n10. **B's fifth response ([01:25]-[01:43])**: Provides a concise and accurate summary of the entire conversation.\n\nOverall, the responses from B are consistently on-topic, logical, and directly answer A's questions. The conversation builds coherently from specific analysis to broader concepts and a final summary. The relevance is excellent.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pauses:**\n* [00:09]: B responds immediately after A. No pause.\n* [00:29]: B responds immediately after A (overlapping slightly). No pause.\n* [00:47]-[00:48]: A 1-second gap between A finishing and B starting. This is a natural, brief pause for turn-taking.\n* [01:04]-[01:05]: A 1-second gap. Again, perfectly normal.\n* [01:24]-[01:25]: A 1-second gap. Also normal.\nThere are no long or awkward pauses in the conversation.\n\n**Overlaps:**\n* [00:18]-[00:20]: A starts speaking about 2 seconds before B finishes. This is a brief, natural overlap that shows engagement rather than interruption.\n* [00:40]-[00:41]: A starts speaking about 1 second before B finishes. Again, a brief and natural overlap.\n* [01:17]-[01:18]: A starts speaking about 1 second before B finishes. This is also brief and natural.\nThe short interjections from speaker B during their own turns (e.g., \"Mm hmm,\" \"Really\") are self-backchannels and do not interfere with the turn-taking between A and B. They do not constitute a harmful overlap.\n\nThe conversation flows very smoothly. Turn-taking is quick and natural, with no disruptive overlaps or long pauses. The fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/107",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: Hey Mom, I lost a dollar on the way home from the store.\n[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Really.\n[[00:03],[00:05]] B: Oh no, that's too bad.\n[[00:06],[00:12]] A: Yeah, I was really angry because I had just bought some candy and now I didn't have enough money to buy a\n[[00:08],[00:09]] A: Right.\n[[00:11],[00:17]] B: Wait, did you check all your pockets? Maybe it slipped into one of them without you noticing.\n[[00:13],[00:13]] B: Right.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:19],[00:24]] A: I did check, but it wasn't there. I was going to say I didn't have enough money to buy a drink.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] A: I see.\n[[00:25],[00:31]] B: Well, it's not the end of the world. Sometimes we lose things and there's nothing we can do about it.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] B: Uh.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: Mm.\n[[00:32],[00:38]] A: But it was my own fault! I should have been more careful with my money. I was thinking about other things and wasn't paying attention.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] A: Um.\n[[00:40],[00:47]] B: I get it, but beating yourself up over it won't change anything. What matters is that you learn from it.\n[[00:42],[00:42]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:43],[00:45]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:48],[00:51]] A: Yes, you're right. I just need to be more careful next time.\n[[00:52],[00:57]] B: Exactly. And remember, you can always earn more money and buy that drink another time.\n[[00:57],[01:00]] A: Yeah, you're right. Thanks, Mom.\n[[01:02],[01:03]] B: Of course, sweetie.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue presents a conversation between a child (A) and their mother (B).\n- Speaker A starts by stating a problem: losing a dollar.\n- Speaker B responds with appropriate sympathy (\"Oh no, that's too bad.\") and then a practical suggestion (\"Wait, did you check all your pockets?\").\n- The conversation progresses logically. A expresses frustration and self-blame (\"But it was my own fault!\").\n- B offers comfort and a life lesson (\"beating yourself up over it won't change anything. What matters is that you learn from it.\").\n- The dialogue concludes with A accepting the advice and feeling better.\n- Every turn is a direct and coherent response to the previous one. The topic is maintained throughout, and the interaction follows a logical and natural problem-solving and comforting arc. All responses are highly relevant and consistent.\n\n\n\nThe dialogue's turn-taking is smooth and natural.\n- **Pauses:** There are several short pauses between turns (e.g., between [00:05] and [00:06], [00:24] and [00:25], [00:47] and [00:48]). The longest pause is only 2 seconds (e.g., [00:17]-[00:19], [00:38]-[00:40]), which is well within the normal range for a reflective conversation and does not harm fluency.\n- **Overlaps:** The transcript shows numerous instances of short, one-word or one-sound utterances (\"Really,\" \"Right,\" \"Mhm,\" \"Uh huh\") that are labeled as overlaps. However, these function as backchanneling or affirmations, indicating active listening. They are very brief and do not disrupt the main speaker's flow. For example, when B is speaking from [00:11] to [00:17], the brief \"Right\" and \"Mhm\" are supportive, not disruptive. There are no extended, competitive overlaps where both speakers are trying to talk over each other.\nThe overall interactional flow is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/107",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:08]] A: That rescue mission story was incredible! Could you explain in more detail how Alex's teaching background specifically helped during the emergency situation?\n[[00:09],[00:15]] B: Well, as a teacher, Alex was used to thinking on their feet when lessons didn't go as planned.\n[[00:11],[00:13]] B: Right.\n[[00:14],[00:22]] A: Wait, what kind of equipment problems did they face during the mission? That sounds really stressful - how did they handle it without panicking?\n[[00:23],[00:30]] B: The radio kept cutting out and some ropes got tangled. But Alex stayed calm because they'd dealt\n[[00:25],[00:26]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] B: Sure.\n[[00:29],[00:40]] A: That makes sense about the teaching skills transferring over. But I'm wondering what specific leadership qualities from teaching were most valuable in that high-pressure rescue scenario?\n[[00:40],[00:49]] B: Definitely the ability to give clear instructions under stress. Also, knowing how to read people's emotions -\n[[00:43],[00:43]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:45],[00:45]] B: Cool.\n[[00:49],[00:58]] A: Speaking of the team, how did Alex's experience working with students prepare them for collaborating with professional rescuers during such a dangerous operation?\n[[00:59],[01:06]] B: Teaching taught Alex how to listen carefully and explain things simply - both crucial when working with\n[[01:01],[01:02]] B: Sure.\n[[01:03],[01:03]] B: Ummm.\n[[01:05],[01:15]] A: That's fascinating! Before we move on, could you share one more example of how Alex applied classroom management techniques during the actual rescue mission?\n[[01:15],[01:28]] B: Sure! When tensions ran high, Alex used the same calming techniques they'd use with upset students - deep breathing exercises and breaking big problems into smaller steps. It worked perfectly with the rescue team too.\n[[01:19],[01:19]] B: Cool.\n[[01:20],[01:21]] B: Um.\n[[01:22],[01:23]] B: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A initiates the conversation by asking a specific question about how a person's teaching background helped in a rescue mission. Speaker B provides a direct answer. Throughout the dialogue, Speaker A asks a series of increasingly specific follow-up questions, each logically building on the previous exchange (e.g., moving from general skills to equipment problems, then to leadership qualities, then collaboration, and finally to a specific classroom management technique). Speaker B consistently provides on-topic, coherent, and relevant answers that directly address Speaker A's questions. The conversation remains focused on a single, clear topic, and the progression is logical and easy to follow.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good, with a fast-paced and engaged conversational flow. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the transitions are generally quick and smooth. However, there are several instances of Speaker A interrupting Speaker B, starting their turn a second or so before Speaker B has finished theirs (e.g., at [00:14], [00:29], and [01:05]). These are extended overlaps. In this context, they seem to reflect Speaker A's high level of engagement and eagerness rather than being disruptive in a harmful way. The conversation doesn't break down; Speaker B is able to make their point before the interruption, and the dialogue proceeds naturally. The very short, single-word utterances from B that overlap with B's own speech (e.g., \"Right.\", \"Ummm.\", \"Sure.\") appear to be conversational fillers or backchannels that don't disrupt the turn-taking flow between the speakers. Overall, the fluency is characteristic of a natural, dynamic conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/107",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:09]] A: That's really interesting about kangaroo social structures! Could you explain more about how the dominant females lead the mobs and what their specific roles are in the group?\n[[00:10],[00:18]] B: Dominant female kangaroos actually make most decisions for the mob, like when to move or where to feed. They're usually\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Really.\n[[00:17],[00:23]] A: Wait, before you go on, how does their age and experience help them protect the group better than younger kangaroos would?\n[[00:23],[00:31]] B: Older females know more about finding food and water in tough conditions, and they recognize\n[[00:27],[00:28]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:30],[00:38]] A: That makes sense! Now, you mentioned males fighting for mates earlier—could you describe how their powerful legs give them an advantage in these fights?\n[[00:39],[00:49]] B: Male kangaroos use their strong legs to deliver powerful kicks that can seriously hurt rivals. They also lean\n[[00:42],[00:42]] B: Really.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:48],[00:55]] A: That sounds intense! Do they ever get seriously injured during these fights, and if so, how do they recover in the wild?\n[[00:55],[01:06]] B: Yes, fights can cause bad injuries like broken bones or deep cuts. But kangaroos heal surprisingly well if they find safe places to\n[[01:01],[01:02]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[01:06],[01:16]] A: Speaking of predators, what animals usually hunt kangaroos, and how do their physical adaptations help them escape or defend themselves?\n[[01:16],[01:26]] B: Dingoes and large birds of prey are their main predators. Kangaroos use their speed to outhop threats, and if\n[[01:19],[01:20]] B: Mm.\n[[01:21],[01:22]] B: Hmm.\n[[01:25],[01:34]] A: That's amazing! One last thing—how do mother kangaroos protect their joeys when there's danger around? Do they have special ways of keeping them safe?\n[[01:35],[01:45]] B: Mother kangaroos keep joeys in their pouches for safety, and if needed, they'll hop away fast. Older joeys learn to dive back into the pouch when scared—it's like a built-in escape pod!\n[[01:38],[01:39]] B: Uh.\n[[01:40],[01:40]] B: Uh huh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A asks a series of specific, on-topic questions about kangaroos, covering social structures, physical abilities, survival, and parental care. Speaker B provides direct and relevant answers to each of A's questions. The conversation maintains a consistent topic (kangaroos) and progresses logically from one sub-topic to the next. For instance, after B mentions males fighting, A follows up by asking about injuries from these fights, creating a coherent and connected conversational thread. All responses are logically consistent and directly address the questions asked.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very high. There are no long or awkward pauses between turns; the speakers transition smoothly and quickly. For example, at [00:09] A finishes and B begins at [00:10], a perfectly normal one-second gap. There are several instances of brief overlap, such as at [00:17]-[00:18] and [00:30]-[00:31]. However, these are not disruptive or extended overlaps. Instead, they represent a highly engaged and fast-paced conversation where Speaker A eagerly jumps in with follow-up questions or reactions. These short interruptions contribute to a natural and dynamic flow rather than hindering it. The overall rhythm of the conversation is smooth and seamless.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/108",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:07]] A: I feel really good about becoming the President. I'm excited to see what I can do in this new role and make a\n[[00:02],[00:02]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:04],[00:04]] A: Um.\n[[00:06],[00:11]] B: That's great, honey! I'm sure you'll do an amazing job. I'm proud of you.\n[[00:08],[00:09]] B: Right.\n[[00:11],[00:19]] A: Thank you, Julia. I appreciate your support. I'm ready to take on whatever challenges come my way and make the best decisions for the country.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] A: Cool.\n[[00:21],[00:26]] B: I know you will. You're a smart and capable man, Ripley. I have faith in you.\n[[00:23],[00:25]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:27],[00:35]] A: Thank you. I'm going to need all the support I can get. There are a lot of things I need to do in order to make this country more prosperous and united.\n[[00:30],[00:31]] A: I see.\n[[00:37],[00:42]] B: You won't be alone. I'll be right here with you, every step of the way.\n[[00:38],[00:39]] B: Really.\n[[00:43],[00:48]] A: I was saying, there are a lot of things I need to do in order to make this country better and I can't do it alone.\n[[00:44],[00:45]] A: Yeah, yeah.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue based on Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\nThe dialogue follows a clear and logical progression. Speaker A, the new President, expresses excitement and a sense of responsibility. Speaker B, their partner, offers consistent support and encouragement.\n- A's initial statement ([00:00]-[00:07]) sets the topic.\n- B's response ([00:06]-[00:11]) is directly relevant, offering praise and support.\n- A's subsequent turn ([00:11]-[00:19]) is a grateful and appropriate reaction, expanding on their commitment.\n- B again provides a relevant and supportive comment ([00:21]-[00:26]).\n- A's next turn ([00:27]-[00:35]) logically follows, acknowledging the need for support and outlining the task ahead.\n- B's reassurance ([00:37]-[00:42]) directly addresses A's stated need for support.\n- A's final statement ([00:43]-[00:48]) repeats their previous point about the scale of the job and not being able to do it alone. While slightly repetitive, the phrase \"I was saying\" makes it a coherent way to re-emphasize a crucial point.\nOverall, the conversation is highly coherent and logically consistent. The responses are always relevant to the preceding turn and the overall topic.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to analyze the flow of the conversation, looking for long pauses or disruptive overlaps.\n\n**Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\n- **Pauses:** I will check the gaps between turns.\n - [00:19] to [00:21]: A 2-second pause. This is a natural, conversational pause.\n - [00:26] to [00:27]: A 1-second pause. Smooth transition.\n - [00:35] to [00:37]: A 2-second pause. Natural.\n - [00:42] to [00:43]: A 1-second pause. Smooth.\n There are no prolonged or awkward pauses that disrupt the flow.\n- **Overlaps:** I will check for overlapping speech.\n - [00:06]-[00:07]: B starts speaking just as A is finishing. This is a very brief (~1 second) and common type of overlap that indicates engaged listening. It is not disruptive.\n - Other turns transition smoothly without significant overlap. The short interjections like \"Uh huh\" and \"Right\" are placed naturally within the main speaker's pauses and do not disrupt their speech.\nThe interaction is fluid. Turn-taking is smooth, and there are no harmful pauses or extended overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/110",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: That's really interesting! Could you explain how the preparation method affects the final taste of the chai compared to regular tea? I'm curious about the boiling process and timing.\n[[00:11],[00:18]] B: Great question! Unlike regular tea, chai gets boiled with spices and milk for several minutes. This slow cooking\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Um.\n[[00:17],[00:25]] A: Wait, so you're saying the spices actually boil in the milk? Does that mean the milk absorbs all those flavors differently than water would?\n[[00:26],[00:34]] B: Exactly right! Milk carries the spice flavors better than water and makes the chai smoother. The fat in\n[[00:28],[00:29]] B: Really.\n[[00:30],[00:31]] B: Sure.\n[[00:33],[00:40]] A: That makes so much sense! Now I'm wondering about regional differences - could you tell me how chai varies across different parts of India?\n[[00:41],[00:51]] B: Sure thing! In Kashmir they add almonds and saffron, while Mumbai street vendors make it extra sweet and strong. Southern versions often\n[[00:44],[00:44]] B: Really.\n[[00:45],[00:46]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:50],[00:58]] A: Oh wow, I had no idea there were so many variations! Which version would you recommend for someone trying chai for the first time?\n[[00:58],[01:07]] B: I'd suggest starting with a classic masala chai - it has the perfect balance of black tea, ginger, cardamom, and cinnamon.\n[[01:01],[01:02]] B: Mhm.\n[[01:03],[01:04]] B: Uh huh.\n[[01:06],[01:14]] A: That sounds perfect! Before I try making it, could you share any tips for getting the spice proportions right when brewing at home?\n[[01:15],[01:28]] B: Start with one teaspoon of tea leaves and quarter teaspoon each of ginger and cardamom per cup. You can adjust to taste - some like it spicier with extra ginger, others prefer more cardamom sweetness.\n[[01:18],[01:19]] B: Cool.\n[[01:20],[01:21]] B: That's cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance and topic coherence. Speaker B consistently provides direct and informative answers to Speaker A's questions. The conversation flows logically from a general inquiry about chai preparation ([[00:00],[00:10]]) to specific details about the role of milk ([[00:17],[00:25]]), regional variations ([[00:33],[00:40]]), recommendations for beginners ([[00:50],[00:58]]), and finally, home-brewing tips ([[01:06],[01:14]]). Each turn builds upon the previous one, creating a coherent and engaging discussion. All responses are logically consistent and stay on the central topic of chai.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent and mirrors natural conversation. The pauses between turns are consistently short (1 second or less), indicating that the speakers are actively engaged and responsive. The overlaps that occur (e.g., [[00:17],[00:18]], [[00:33],[00:34]]) are brief, lasting only about one second. These are not disruptive but rather function as natural interruptions or smooth turn transitions, typical of an enthusiastic and flowing dialogue. There are no prolonged, awkward pauses or extended overlaps that would hinder the conversation's flow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/110",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: What do you play?\n[[00:01],[00:06]] B: I've been playing guitar for a while. It's a lot of fun to learn and play with other people!\n[[00:04],[00:05]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:07],[00:09]] A: What kind of music do you like to play?\n[[00:10],[00:14]] B: My favorite band is the Beatles. I also like the Grateful\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: Mm.\n[[00:13],[00:17]] A: Sorry to cut in, but I love the Beatles too! Do you have a favorite song of theirs?\n[[00:15],[00:15]] A: I see.\n[[00:18],[00:24]] B: Definitely \"Hey Jude.\" But I was also going to mention that I like the Grateful Dead. What about you?\n[[00:20],[00:21]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:25],[00:28]] A: I play guitar and I also sing.\n[[00:26],[00:27]] A: Okay,okay.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and coherence of the dialogue.\n- A asks what B plays. B answers \"guitar\" and elaborates. This is a relevant response.\n- A then asks a logical follow-up question about the type of music. This maintains topic coherence.\n- B starts answering about their favorite bands (\"the Beatles\"). This is a direct and relevant answer.\n- A interrupts to share a common interest (\"I love the Beatles too!\"). While an interruption, it is directly related to what B just said, making it highly relevant and a natural way to show engagement.\n- B answers A's question (\"Hey Jude\"), finishes their previous point (\"Grateful Dead\"), and then turns the question back to A (\"What about you?\"). This is all perfectly coherent and relevant.\n- A responds by stating what they play (\"guitar and... sing\"). This is a slight deviation from the implied question about favorite music, but it is still highly relevant to the overall conversation topic of playing music. It's a natural turn in a conversation.\nOverall, the dialogue is thematically consistent and the turns are logically connected.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n- **Pauses:** I will check the timestamps for gaps between turns.\n - From B's turn ending at [00:06] to A's turn starting at [00:07], there is a 1-second pause. This is a normal conversational gap.\n - From A's turn ending at [00:09] to B's turn starting at [00:10], there is a 1-second pause. This is also normal.\n - From A's turn ending at [00:17] to B's turn starting at [00:18], there is a 1-second pause. This is normal.\n - From B's turn ending at [00:24] to A's turn starting at [00:25], there is a 1-second pause. This is normal.\n - There are no long, awkward pauses in the dialogue.\n- **Overlaps:** I will check the timestamps for overlapping speech.\n - There is a significant overlap from [00:13] to [00:14] where A begins speaking while B is still speaking. However, A immediately acknowledges and apologizes for this (\"Sorry to cut in...\"). This is a very natural and common feature of an enthusiastic conversation, not a fluency error. It shows active listening and engagement.\n - The other overlaps ([00:04]-[00:05], [00:12]-[00:13], [00:15]-[00:15], etc.) are brief, single-speaker self-interruptions or backchannels, not problematic turn-taking clashes.\n- The turn-taking is smooth and natural, with the one interruption being handled appropriately for a casual conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/110",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:09]] A: That's really interesting! Could you tell me more about how the old woman knew about the talisman and why she decided to help Jack in the first place?\n[[00:10],[00:18]] B: The old woman was actually a wise healer who had lived in the woods for many years. She\n[[00:12],[00:14]] B: Um.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Mm.\n[[00:17],[00:26]] A: That makes sense! What kind of magic did the old woman's grandmother use to protect herself, and was it similar to the talisman she gave Jack?\n[[00:28],[00:54]] B: Her grandmother used a different kind of charm—a silver pendant with ancient runes carved into it. It worked much like the talisman, but it required chanting special words to activate. The old woman improved the magic by making the talisman simpler to use, so Jack wouldn't need to know spells. Both protected against dark magic, but hers was stronger.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] B: Um.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] B: I see.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for Response Relevance.\n\n1. **A's first turn ([00:00]-[00:09]):** A asks two specific questions about the backstory: how the old woman knew about the talisman and why she helped Jack.\n2. **B's first turn ([00:10]-[00:18]):** B begins to answer by explaining the old woman's identity (\"a wise healer who had lived in the woods for many years\"). This directly starts to address the \"why she helped\" question by establishing her character and knowledge. The response is relevant.\n3. **A's second turn ([00:17]-[00:26]):** A says \"That makes sense!\" indicating they understood the previous point. They then ask a follow-up question about the grandmother's magic and how it compares to the talisman. This is a logical progression, building upon the established magical theme. The question is coherent with the topic.\n4. **B's second turn ([00:28]-[00:54]):** B gives a detailed and direct answer. They explain the grandmother's magic (silver pendant, runes, chanting) and explicitly compare it to the talisman Jack received (simpler, no chanting required). This response is perfectly relevant, logically consistent, and directly addresses A's question.\n\nOverall, the dialogue maintains a clear topic. The questions and answers are logically connected and build upon each other, creating a coherent narrative.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for Interactional Fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses between turns:**\n * The pause between A's first turn and B's first turn is 1 second ([00:09] to [00:10]). This is a natural, very brief pause.\n * The pause between A's second turn and B's second turn is 2 seconds ([00:26] to [00:28]). This is also a perfectly normal pause, allowing for a moment of thought before answering.\n * There are no prolonged or awkward silences.\n\n2. **Overlaps in conversation:**\n * There is a minor overlap between B's first turn and A's second turn. B's turn is transcribed until [00:18], while A's turn begins at [00:17]. This is a 1-second overlap. Given that A starts with \"That makes sense!\", this appears to be a natural, collaborative interjection rather than a disruptive interruption. Such brief overlaps are common and acceptable in natural conversation.\n\n3. **Internal hesitations:**\n * B has several brief hesitations/filler words (\"Um.\", \"Mm.\", \"Uh huh.\", \"I see.\") within their turns. These are short and typical of natural speech, not indicating any fluency issues.\n\nThe interaction flows smoothly and naturally. Pauses are brief, and the single overlap is minor and not disruptive.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/111",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:08]] A: Could you explain how German sauerkraut is usually prepared and what ingredients are typically used in the cooking process? I'm curious about the traditional method.\n[[00:10],[00:15]] B: German sauerkraut is cooked by simmering it with liquids like water,\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: Right.\n[[00:14],[00:25]] A: What vegetarian alternatives could I use instead of bacon or sausage in sauerkraut, and how would that change the cooking process or flavor? I want to keep it tasty without meat.\n[[00:25],[00:43]] B: Great options for vegetarian sauerkraut include smoked tofu, veggie bacon, or portobello mushrooms. You might want to add extra herbs or use vegetable broth for more flavor. The cooking time stays about the same, but you'll get a lighter, meat-free version that's still delicious.\n[[00:31],[00:31]] B: I see.\n[[00:32],[00:34]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:34],[00:35]] B: Cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user's first question at [00:00] asks about the traditional preparation of German sauerkraut. The system begins to answer this at [00:10]. However, the user interjects at [00:14] with a new, more specific question about vegetarian alternatives. The system then pivots effectively at [00:25] to provide a detailed and relevant answer to this new question, suggesting specific ingredients (smoked tofu, veggie bacon) and cooking modifications. The dialogue maintains topic coherence, staying focused on sauerkraut, and the responses are logically consistent with the questions asked.\n\n\n\nThe interaction flows smoothly without significant disruptions. There is a normal 2-second pause between the first turn [00:08] and the second [00:10], which is natural. There is a brief, one-second overlap from [00:14] to [00:15] where speaker A begins their question while speaker B is finishing their sentence. This is a common and acceptable form of barge-in and does not disrupt the conversation's flow. There are no extended, harmful overlaps or long, awkward pauses between turns, resulting in excellent interactional fluency.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/111",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:08]] A: Could you give me a simple recipe for creamy shrimp scampi with linguine? I want something rich and delicious but not too complicated to make.\n[[00:09],[00:16]] B: Sure! Here's an easy shrimp scampi recipe. First, cook linguine until al dente. Sauté\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: Uh.\n[[00:13],[00:13]] B: Sure.\n[[00:15],[00:23]] A: That sounds perfect! What kind of wine would go well with this dish? I want something that complements the creamy sauce and shrimp flavors.\n[[00:25],[00:41]] B: A buttery Chardonnay pairs nicely with creamy shrimp scampi. If you prefer lighter wines, try Sauvignon Blanc or Pinot Grigio. Italian Vermentino or dry rosé also work well. Choose what you like best!\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: Cool.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: I see.\n[[00:33],[00:34]] B: Yeah, yeah.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A begins by asking for a specific recipe, and Speaker B starts to provide a relevant answer. Speaker A then asks a logical follow-up question about wine pairings for the dish, which Speaker B answers comprehensively. The conversation maintains a consistent and coherent topic throughout.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. There is a very brief, one-second overlap between [00:15] and [00:16] as Speaker A interjects with a follow-up question. This is a natural type of interruption and does not disrupt the flow. The pauses between turns are short and appropriate for a natural conversation (1 second between the first two turns, 2 seconds between the second two turns). There are no extended overlaps or long, awkward pauses.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/113",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:06]] A: John, I know you're going through a tough time right now. I just want to be close to you and help however I\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: Right.\n[[00:05],[00:23]] B: Thank you, Jaheem. Just knowing you're here for me makes things a little easier. It's been hard adjusting to retirement after working for so many years. I miss the structure and purpose that work provided in my daily routine, and it's been challenging to find something to replace that.\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: Uh.\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Really.\n[[00:24],[00:40]] B: I totally get that. Have you thought about maybe mentoring someone? Your experience could be incredibly valuable to someone just starting out.or maybe there are some ways we can fill that void together. What do you think about volunteering at the local library or taking up a new hobby?\n[[00:28],[00:29]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:30],[00:31]] B: I see.\n[[00:32],[00:33]] B: Sure.\n[[00:41],[00:49]] B: Those are both great ideas! I'm going to look into those options and see if anything interests me. Thank you for your support, it means a lot to me.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:45],[00:46]] B: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and logical consistency of the dialogue.\n\n1. **Turn 1 (A):** Speaker A initiates the conversation by offering support to Speaker B (John) for a \"tough time.\" This sets a clear and supportive topic.\n2. **Turn 2 (B):** Speaker B responds directly to A, thanking them and explaining the specific \"tough time\" – difficulty adjusting to retirement and missing the structure of work. This is a perfectly relevant and logical continuation.\n3. **Turn 3 (mislabeled as B, but clearly A's response):** This speaker empathizes (\"I totally get that\") and then offers specific, constructive suggestions (mentoring, volunteering, new hobbies) that directly address the problem B just described (finding purpose and filling a void). The response is highly relevant and coherent.\n4. **Turn 4 (B):** Speaker B responds positively to the suggestions, indicating they will consider them and reiterating their gratitude. This concludes the problem-solving part of the conversation logically.\n\nThe entire dialogue follows a clear, logical path from offering support to identifying a problem, suggesting solutions, and accepting them. The topic is coherent throughout.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:** There are no long pauses indicated in the transcript. The time between turns is minimal and appropriate for a natural conversation (e.g., a one-second gap between the end of B's turn at [00:23] and the start of the next turn at [00:24]).\n2. **Overlaps:** The transcript contains several short, overlapping utterances.\n * `[00:05]` B starts speaking while A is finishing their sentence at `[00:06]`. This is a very brief (1-second) and common type of turn-transition overlap, not a disruptive one.\n * The other overlaps are short backchannel cues like \"I see,\" \"Sure,\" and \"Ummm.\" These occur while the main speaker is talking (e.g., B says \"I see\" at [00:30] during A's turn from [00:24] to [00:40]). These are not harmful interruptions; rather, they are markers of active listening and engagement, which contribute to a fluent and natural interaction.\n * Some backchannels appear to be mis-transcribed as occurring during the speaker's own turn (e.g., B saying \"Uh huh\" at [00:43] while also delivering their main line). However, evaluating the *intended* conversational flow, these backchannels represent positive fluency.\n\nThere are no extended, disruptive overlaps or long, awkward pauses. The flow is smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/113",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: That's fascinating about the burial rituals, but could you tell me more about how they built this massive structure without modern tools? What techniques did they use to move those huge stones?\n[[00:12],[00:23]] B: They were incredibly resourceful! The builders likely used wooden rollers and ropes to move the giant stones. They also probably built earth ramps to position\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Uh.\n[[00:22],[00:31]] A: Speaking of the community effort, do we know how many people might have been involved in building it? And how long would it have taken them to complete such an impressive project?\n[[00:31],[00:40]] B: Archaeologists estimate it took dozens of workers many years to finish. Maybe even generations! They didn't have metal\n[[00:34],[00:35]] B: Uh.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] B: I see.\n[[00:39],[00:49]] A: You mentioned it connects to Stonehenge earlier - could you explain more about that connection? Were these sites built around the same time, and did they serve similar purposes?\n[[00:49],[01:00]] B: They're from roughly the same Neolithic period, about 5,000 years ago. While Stonehenge was more for ceremonies, West Kennet was mainly for burials. But\n[[00:54],[00:56]] B: Um.\n[[01:00],[01:09]] A: That makes me wonder - what other important sites are nearby that help us understand this ancient landscape better? Are there any particularly interesting ones visitors should see?\n[[01:10],[01:19]] B: Absolutely! Avebury stone circle is just two miles away and even bigger than Stonehenge. Silbury Hill,\n[[01:13],[01:14]] B: Uh.\n[[01:14],[01:15]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[01:19],[01:29]] A: Before we finish, could you share what visitors experience today when they visit West Kennet? Can you actually go inside the burial chambers, and is there anything special to look for?\n[[01:30],[01:43]] B: Yes, you can walk right into the chambers! The passage is about 40 feet long. Look for the different stone chambers where they placed the remains. The atmosphere inside is amazing - you really feel connected to the past.\n[[01:34],[01:34]] B: Mm.\n[[01:35],[01:36]] B: I see.\n[[01:37],[01:37]] B: Cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue follows a clear question-and-answer format. Speaker A consistently asks specific, on-topic questions about the West Kennet Long Barrow, such as its construction methods, the workforce involved, its connection to Stonehenge, other nearby sites, and the modern visitor experience. Speaker B provides direct, relevant, and informative answers to each of these questions. The conversation maintains a logical flow and high topic coherence throughout, with each turn building logically on the previous one. There are no instances of irrelevant or inconsistent responses.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between turns; the transitions are swift and natural, often with only a one-second gap or no gap at all. For example, the transition from A's turn ending at [00:11] to B's starting at [00:12] is seamless. The overlaps that do occur are very brief (e.g., a one-second overlap between [00:22] and [00:23]) and are characteristic of an engaged, natural conversation where one speaker eagerly follows up on the other's point. The numerous short utterances from B (like \"Uh,\" \"I see,\" \"Um\") function as backchanneling, indicating active listening without disrupting the flow of the conversation. There are no extended or disruptive overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/113",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:13]] A: Could you give me simple step-by-step instructions for making a classic green bean casserole? I want to use canned green beans, cream of mushroom soup, and French fried onions. What measurements and cooking times should I use?\n[[00:14],[00:20]] B: Here's an easy recipe. First, mix two cans of green beans with one can of cream of\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Really.\n[[00:19],[00:29]] A: That recipe sounds perfect, but could you suggest some healthier alternatives to French fried onions? I'm trying to make this dish a bit more nutritious while keeping it tasty.\n[[00:30],[00:51]] B: Absolutely! You could try homemade whole wheat breadcrumbs with olive oil. Or use caramelized onions for sweetness. Toasted almonds add nice crunch. Crispy baked shallots work well too. All these options are healthier than fried onions but still give great texture and flavor.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:38],[00:39]] B: Cool.\n[[00:40],[00:41]] B: Mhm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user A starts by asking for a specific recipe with clear ingredient constraints. The assistant B begins to provide the recipe as requested, demonstrating relevance. User A then interrupts with a follow-up question about healthier alternatives for one of the ingredients. This is a logical and coherent shift in the conversation. The assistant B responds directly to this new request by providing several suitable alternatives. The dialogue is thematically consistent and logically sound throughout.\n\n\n\nThe interaction flows smoothly without any significant disruptions.\n- **Pauses:** There are no prolonged pauses between turns. For instance, B starts at [00:14] immediately after A finishes at [00:13].\n- **Overlaps:**\n - There is a brief, one-second overlap between A and B from [00:19] to [00:20]. This is a natural interruption and does not harm the interaction.\n - Speaker B has several very short self-interruptions or filler words (\"Really.\", \"Ummm.\", \"Cool.\", \"Mhm.\") during their own speaking turns. These are brief, typical of natural speech, and do not disrupt the overall flow or clarity of the message.\nThe interactional fluency is high, resembling a natural and efficient conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/114",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: Hi, Courtney. Let's get started on your homework.\n[[00:01],[00:01]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:03],[00:06]] B: Hi, Jeannie. I don't know where to start.\n[[00:06],[00:12]] A: That's okay. We'll take it one step at a time. Do you have your math book open to the right page?\n[[00:09],[00:09]] A: Sure.\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: Yes.\n[[00:13],[00:17]] A: Okay, let's start with this problem then. What do you think is the first step?\n[[00:15],[00:16]] A: Sure.\n[[00:18],[00:20]] B: I don't know...carry the one?\n[[00:21],[00:31]] A: You could try that. Sometimes it helps to write down each step as you go so you don't forget anything. Would you like me to walk you through this problem or would you like to try it on your own\n[[00:24],[00:25]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:26],[00:27]] A: Cool.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Can you walk me through it?\n[[00:32],[00:41]] A: Okay. So, the first step is to carry the one. Then you add the numbers in the ones column, which would be six plus two equals eight. Write that down.\n[[00:35],[00:35]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:37],[00:37]] A: Really.\n[[00:42],[00:43]] B: Eight. Got it.\n[[00:43],[00:50]] A: Then you bring down the number in the tens column, so that would be one plus zero equals one. Does that make sense?\n[[00:45],[00:46]] A: Really.\n[[00:47],[00:48]] A: Sure.\n[[00:51],[00:54]] B: Wait, shouldn't we double-check the ones column first to make sure it's correct?\n[[00:52],[00:53]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:55],[01:04]] A: Oh, sure. Let's double-check. Six plus two is eight, so that's correct. Now, back to the tens column, one plus zero equals one.\n[[01:04],[01:05]] B: One.\n[[01:05],[01:11]] A: And then you add those two numbers together, eight plus one equals nine.\n[[01:11],[01:12]] B: Nine! I did it!\n[[01:12],[01:18]] A: Great job! Would you like to try another problem on your own or do you want me to walk you through it?\n[[01:18],[01:21]] B: I think I can do it on my own now. Thanks, Jeannie!",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A (the tutor) initiates the homework session, and Speaker B (the student) responds appropriately by expressing uncertainty. A's subsequent turns are consistently supportive and directly related to guiding B through the math problem. When B interrupts to ask about double-checking a step ([[00:51],[00:54]]), it is a highly relevant and on-topic question. A's response ([[00:55],[01:04]]) directly addresses B's query before smoothly returning to the problem-solving sequence. The conversation follows a clear, logical path from start to finish, with each utterance being a coherent follow-up to the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth and natural. There are no extended, disruptive overlaps. The few short, one-second pauses between turns (e.g., between [[00:17]] and [[00:18]]) are natural and serve as thinking time, which is appropriate for a tutoring context. The numerous brief interjections from Speaker A (like \"Sure,\" \"Mhm,\" \"Really\") within their own turns are typical conversational fillers and do not disrupt the flow or overlap with Speaker B's speech. The dialogue flows seamlessly without any awkward gaps or interruptions.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/114",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: That sounds absolutely fascinating! Could you tell me more about how the flavors of chiles en nogada work together and what makes this dish so special compared to other Mexican dishes?\n[[00:12],[00:20]] B: The flavors in chiles en nogada create a perfect balance. The poblano pepper brings a mild heat and\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:19],[00:33]] A: I love how you describe the dish so vividly! Since it’s tied to Mexican Independence Day, could you explain how people typically celebrate with this dish and if there are any special traditions around preparing or serving it?\n[[00:34],[00:51]] B: During Independence Day, families and restaurants prepare chiles en nogada with great care. The dish is often served as the centerpiece of festive meals, symbolizing national pride. Some cooks use only seasonal ingredients to honor tradition, making it a once-a-year treat.\n[[00:40],[00:41]] B: Uh.\n[[00:42],[00:43]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:44],[00:45]] B: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and coherence of the dialogue.\n- Speaker A asks about the flavors of chiles en nogada.\n- Speaker B begins to answer by describing the taste of the poblano pepper, which is directly relevant.\n- Speaker A then asks a follow-up question about the dish's connection to Mexican Independence Day and associated traditions. This is a logical continuation of the topic.\n- Speaker B answers this second question in detail, explaining how families celebrate with the dish and the tradition of using seasonal ingredients.\nThe conversation is topically coherent and logically consistent. Each response directly addresses the preceding question.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the flow of the conversation, specifically looking for long pauses or extended overlaps.\n- **Pauses:** There is a 1-second pause between A's first turn ([00:11]) and B's response ([00:12]). There is another 1-second pause between A's second turn ([00:33]) and B's response ([00:34]). These are natural, short pauses and do not disrupt the flow.\n- **Overlaps:** There is a brief, 1-second overlap where A begins speaking ([00:19]) just before B finishes their turn ([00:20]). This type of minor overlap is common in natural conversation and does not harm fluency. The other utterances from B (\"Yeah, yeah\", \"Mhm\", \"Uh\", etc.) occur during their own speaking turns, not as overlaps with A, and function as self-corrections or fillers.\nOverall, the interaction is fluid with no harmful pauses or overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/114",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Have you ever tried to cook before?\n[[00:02],[00:03]] B: No.\n[[00:03],[00:08]] A: You should try cooking something that you like. What do you\n[[00:05],[00:06]] A: Really.\n[[00:07],[00:11]] B: Actually, I was wondering, do you have any easy recipes in mind for beginners?\n[[00:08],[00:10]] B: Uh.\n[[00:12],[00:17]] A: Sure, I can suggest a few. But before that, I was asking what you like to eat.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] A: Mm.\n[[00:18],[00:22]] B: Anything involving meat, really. I like making casseroles.\n[[00:20],[00:20]] B: Uh.\n[[00:22],[00:26]] A: Cool, I'll try to cook something involving meat!\n[[00:24],[00:24]] A: Uh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for Response Relevance.\n\n1. **A: Have you ever tried to cook before?** -> **B: No.**\n - B's response is a direct and relevant answer to A's question.\n\n2. **A: You should try cooking something that you like. What do you...** -> **B: Actually, I was wondering, do you have any easy recipes in mind for beginners?**\n - A's turn is a logical follow-up, offering advice and asking a clarifying question.\n - B interrupts A, but their question is perfectly on-topic, asking for recipes, which is the natural next step in a conversation about starting to cook. This is coherent.\n\n3. **A: Sure, I can suggest a few. But before that, I was asking what you like to eat.**\n - A acknowledges B's request and agrees to help, but first circles back to their own unfinished (and important) question. This demonstrates excellent topic management and coherence.\n\n4. **B: Anything involving meat, really. I like making casseroles.**\n - B provides a direct answer to A's question. There is a minor logical inconsistency, as B previously said they have never cooked but now says they \"like making casseroles\". This could be a slip of the tongue (meaning \"eating\") or interpreted in another way, but it doesn't derail the conversation. The core information (liking meat/casseroles) is relevant.\n\n5. **A: Cool, I'll try to cook something involving meat!**\n - A's response acknowledges B's preference. While phrased a bit ambiguously (it could sound like A is going to cook, not B), in the context of the conversation where A is the one with knowledge providing suggestions, it is clearly understood as \"Okay, I'll use that information to think of a meat recipe for you.\"\n\nOverall, the conversation is highly relevant and logically consistent. The speakers stay on the topic of cooking, and their turns build upon each other in a coherent manner. The minor inconsistencies are typical of natural conversation and do not harm the overall relevance.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for Interactional Fluency, focusing on pauses and overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:** There are no long or awkward pauses between turns. The transition from one speaker to the next is smooth and happens without delay (e.g., [[00:02],[00:02]] and [[00:03],[00:03]]) or with very brief, natural one-second pauses ([[00:11],[00:12]] and [[00:17],[00:18]]).\n\n2. **Overlaps:** There is a one-second overlap from [[00:07],[00:08]] where B begins speaking while A is finishing their turn. This functions as a natural interruption, with B eagerly asking a follow-up question. It is not a disruptive or extended overlap where both speakers are competing for the floor. The other \"overlaps\" noted in the transcript ([[00:05],[00:06]], [[00:14],[00:15]], etc.) are just self-corrections or fillers (\"Really\", \"Mm\", \"Uh\") from the current speaker, which are hallmarks of natural, fluent speech.\n\nThe turn-taking is fluid and natural. The pace of the conversation is excellent, with no signs of struggle or awkwardness. The fluency is high.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/114",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:09]] A: That's really wonderful advice about simple daily kindnesses. Could you explain more about how these small acts actually benefit the person showing compassion too?\n[[00:09],[00:19]] B: Absolutely! When you're kind to others, your brain actually releases feel-good chemicals like oxytocin. It reduces stress and can\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: Right.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Really.\n[[00:18],[00:28]] A: That makes so much sense about the biological benefits too. But what about when people feel shy or awkward about reaching out to strangers? How can they overcome that hesitation?\n[[00:28],[00:38]] B: Great question! Start small - even just making eye contact and nodding counts. Remember most people appreciate friendly gestures. The more you\n[[00:32],[00:34]] B: Cool.\n[[00:37],[00:47]] A: That's really encouraging to hear about starting small. Could you share some heartwarming examples of how simple kindness between strangers made a big difference in someone's life?\n[[00:48],[00:59]] B: Oh, I love sharing these! There was a man who bought coffee for the person behind him, starting a 378-person chain. Or the time a simple\n[[00:51],[00:52]] B: Cool.\n[[00:53],[00:53]] B: Uh.\n[[00:54],[00:55]] B: Mm.\n[[00:58],[01:07]] A: Those stories are incredibly powerful. What would you say to someone who thinks their small act won't make any real difference in the world?\n[[01:08],[01:25]] B: I'd tell them about the butterfly effect - tiny actions can change everything! That compliment you give might give someone confidence to ace a job interview. Your kind word could be the only nice thing someone hears all day. Never underestimate small kindnesses!\n[[01:13],[01:14]] B: Hmm.\n[[01:15],[01:16]] B: Really.\n[[01:17],[01:18]] B: Uh huh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Speaker A initiates the conversation with a clear question about the benefits of kindness for the giver. Speaker B responds directly by explaining the biological and psychological benefits. The conversation then progresses logically. A asks a follow-up question about overcoming shyness, B provides practical advice. A then asks for examples, B provides them. Finally, A asks a more philosophical question about the impact of small acts, and B gives a thoughtful, concluding answer. Each turn is a coherent and logical continuation of the previous one, with both speakers staying on the topic of kindness throughout the entire interaction. There are no inconsistencies or abrupt topic changes.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is also excellent. There are no prolonged pauses between turns; the speakers respond to each other promptly, indicating a smooth and natural conversational rhythm. The transcript shows several brief, one-second overlaps where the next speaker begins just as the current one is finishing (e.g., at [00:18], [00:37], [00:58]). These are typical of an engaged and natural conversation and are not disruptive. The transcript also contains very short, one-word utterances from speaker B during their own turns (e.g., \"Right.\", \"Cool.\"). These are extremely brief and do not interrupt the flow or clarity of B's main points. They function more like minor fillers or affirmations and do not constitute a harmful overlap or disfluency. Overall, the dialogue flows smoothly without any significant interruptions.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/115",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:05]] A: Thank you so much for your kind words. I'm glad I could help your children succeed in school.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Really.\n[[00:05],[00:16]] B: It's truly been a lifesaver. We were starting to get worried about our kids' future. But now, with your help, they're doing much better in school and we're more confident\n[[00:08],[00:10]] B: Um.\n[[00:11],[00:11]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:15],[00:21]] A: Sorry to interrupt, but I just wanted to ask, have you noticed any specific areas where they still need improvement?\n[[00:17],[00:18]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:22],[00:28]] B: Well, I'm just glad I could help. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to support your children's education.\n[[00:24],[00:25]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:28],[00:39]] A: Actually, one area is their math skills. We might need more targeted help there. By the way, I forgot to ask earlier, what other subjects do you think they might need additional support in?\n[[00:32],[00:33]] A: Really.\n[[00:33],[00:34]] A: Uh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains a consistent topic of a child's educational progress and the support they are receiving. Speaker A begins by graciously accepting thanks, and Speaker B elaborates on why they are grateful. A then logically transitions the conversation towards future needs by asking about specific areas for improvement. While B's response at [00:22] is slightly generic and doesn't directly answer A's question, it doesn't break the conversational context entirely. A then effectively steers the conversation back to specifics at [00:28] by mentioning math skills (perhaps based on their own observations as a tutor) and then asking a follow-up question. The thematic coherence is maintained throughout, and the logical progression from general gratitude to specific educational needs is clear.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. The turn-taking is generally smooth and happens without any long, disruptive pauses. There is one instance of an overlap where speaker A begins talking at [00:15] while speaker B is finishing their sentence at [00:16]. However, this overlap is very brief (about 1 second). Furthermore, speaker A immediately mitigates this by saying, \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which is a natural conversational repair strategy. This makes the interruption feel more like an eager interjection rather than a rude disruption. As per the instructions, brief overlaps are acceptable, and this one does not harm the overall flow of the conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/115",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:14]] A: I understand hickory trees are affected by climate and soil, but could you explain more about how extreme weather impacts their lifespan? I live in an area with harsh conditions and want to know how to help my trees survive longer.\n[[00:14],[00:24]] B: Extreme weather can really take a toll on hickory trees. Long hot spells dry them out and attract\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Mm.\n[[00:23],[00:32]] A: Wait, before you go on, could you clarify what kind of pests are most common during droughts? I've noticed some bugs on my trees but I'm not sure if they're harmful.\n[[00:32],[00:43]] B: Oh good question! During dry periods, you'll often see bark beetles and hickory borers. These pests target weakened trees. Also\n[[00:36],[00:36]] B: Cool.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] B: I see.\n[[00:42],[00:53]] A: Since you mentioned mulching and watering earlier, could you recommend specific natural fertilizers that would be safe for hickory trees while also helping them withstand extreme weather?\n[[00:53],[01:05]] B: Absolutely! Organic compost is my top pick - it feeds trees slowly and improves soil. Aged manure works great too. For quick nutrition, try\n[[00:56],[00:57]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:58],[00:59]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[01:00],[01:01]] B: Uh.\n[[01:04],[01:12]] A: How often should I apply these fertilizers, and is there a particular time of year that's best for feeding hickory trees to prepare them for harsh conditions?\n[[01:13],[01:28]] B: Early spring is ideal, right before new growth starts. A second light feeding in fall helps too. Just remember - don't overdo it! Once or twice a year is plenty for mature trees. Too much can actually stress them more.\n[[01:17],[01:18]] B: I see.\n[[01:19],[01:20]] B: That's cool.\n[[01:21],[01:21]] B: Mm hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance.\n\n1. **A's first turn ([[00:00],[00:14]]):** A asks a specific question about how extreme weather affects the lifespan of hickory trees. This sets the topic clearly.\n2. **B's first turn ([[00:14],[00:24]]):** B begins to answer A's question directly, mentioning how hot spells dry out the trees and attract pests. This is a perfectly relevant start.\n3. **A's second turn ([[00:23],[00:32]]):** A interrupts to ask a clarifying question about the pests B just mentioned. This is a logical and relevant follow-up question that builds directly on the previous turn.\n4. **B's second turn ([[00:32],[00:43]]):** B answers A's question about pests, naming specific types (bark beetles, hickory borers). This is a direct and relevant response.\n5. **A's third turn ([[00:42],[00:53]]):** A asks about natural fertilizers. While this is a new sub-topic, A links it to the overall goal of helping trees survive harsh conditions, making it coherent with the initial question. The reference to \"mulching and watering earlier\" suggests a logical continuation of a conversation that may have started before the transcript.\n6. **B's third turn ([[00:53],[01:05]]):** B provides a direct and helpful answer, recommending specific fertilizers like compost and manure. This is highly relevant.\n7. **A's fourth turn ([[01:04],[01:12]]):** A asks for more details about the application of these fertilizers (frequency and timing). This is a natural, logical follow-up question.\n8. **B's fourth turn ([[01:13],[01:28]]):** B gives a precise answer about when and how often to fertilize, and adds a relevant warning. This is a complete and relevant response.\n\nOverall, the dialogue is highly coherent. Each speaker's turn is a direct and logical response or question related to the previous turn, and the conversation stays focused on the central theme of caring for hickory trees in harsh weather.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n* **Pauses:**\n * [[00:14]] A ends, [[00:14]] B starts. No pause.\n * [[00:32]] A ends, [[00:32]] B starts. No pause.\n * [[00:53]] A ends, [[00:53]] B starts. No pause.\n * [[01:12]] A ends, [[01:13]] B starts. There is a 1-second pause, which is a completely natural and acceptable gap between turns.\n * **Conclusion on pauses:** There are no long or disruptive pauses.\n\n* **Overlaps:**\n * [[00:23],[00:24]]: A begins speaking just as B is finishing. This is a very brief (1-second) overlap and functions as a natural interruption to ask a clarifying question. It is not harmful.\n * [[00:42],[00:43]]: A begins speaking as B is finishing. Another very brief (1-second) overlap, which is a common and smooth way to take a turn. Not harmful.\n * [[01:04],[01:05]]: A begins speaking as B is finishing. A third instance of a brief, natural 1-second overlap. Not harmful.\n * The other annotations for B ([[00:19],[00:20]], [[00:36],[00:36]], etc.) are self-interjections or backchannels that B says while they are the primary speaker. They are not overlaps between A and B and are too short to disrupt the flow.\n\n* **Overall Fluency:** The turn-taking is smooth and natural. The brief overlaps show active engagement rather than disruptive interruption. There are no awkward silences. The conversation flows very well.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/115",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:15]] A: Could you explain in more detail how the contoured design of the Morgan Endurance Thai Pad helps trainers stay balanced during intense training sessions? I'm particularly interested in how it differs from regular flat pads that most gyms use.\n[[00:15],[00:21]] B: The contoured shape fits naturally against your forearm, making it way easier to hold\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:20],[00:26]] A: Wait, could you describe exactly how the curve helps with balance when I'm moving around or blocking fast kicks?\n[[00:27],[00:34]] B: Sure! The curve hugs your arm so the pad stays put even when you pivot or shift\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: Sure.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:33],[00:44]] A: What makes the layered high and medium density foam in these pads better at absorbing impact compared to cheaper training gear? I want to understand why the foam combination matters.\n[[00:45],[00:50]] B: The high-density foam handles hard strikes like roundhouse kicks, while\n[[00:47],[00:47]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:49],[00:54]] A: How long does this foam last before it breaks down? I’ve had pads go flat after a few months.\n[[00:54],[01:05]] B: These are built to last years, not months. The foam resists compression way better than single-layer pads, so it stays springy even with daily use.\n[[00:58],[00:58]] B: Really.\n[[01:00],[01:01]] B: Uh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue based on response relevance and interactional fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n- Speaker A starts by asking a detailed question about the contoured design of a Thai pad [[00:00],[00:15]].\n- Speaker B begins to answer directly, explaining how the shape fits the forearm [[00:15],[00:21]].\n- Speaker A interjects to ask for a more specific clarification on how the design helps with balance during movement [[00:20],[00:26]]. This is a relevant follow-up.\n- Speaker B provides a direct and logical answer to the clarification, explaining that the curve keeps the pad in place [[00:27],[00:34]].\n- Speaker A then shifts the topic to the foam quality and impact absorption [[00:33],[00:44]], which is a logical progression when discussing the product's features.\n- Speaker B begins to explain the function of the layered foam [[00:45],[00:50]].\n- Speaker A interjects again with a related question about the foam's durability [[00:49],[00:54]]. This is a very relevant concern following the discussion of foam quality.\n- Speaker B provides a comprehensive answer, comparing the product's longevity to other pads [[00:54],[01:05]].\n\nOverall, the conversation is highly relevant and coherent. Each turn logically follows the previous one. B consistently provides direct answers to A's questions, and A's interruptions are well-timed, relevant follow-up questions that steer the conversation toward more detail.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\n- **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between turns. The transition from A to B at [[00:33]-[00:45]] has a 1-second pause, which is a natural conversational gap. The other turns transition smoothly with no delay.\n- **Overlaps:**\n - There is a brief, 1-second overlap between B [[00:15],[00:21]] and A [[00:20],[00:26]]. A starts speaking just as B is finishing, which is a common and natural way to interject for clarification. It is not disruptive.\n - There is another brief, 1-second overlap between B [[00:45],[00:50]] and A [[00:49],[00:54]]. Similar to the first overlap, A is asking a keen follow-up question as B is about to finish a thought. This makes the conversation feel dynamic and engaged.\n- **Other utterances:** Speaker B uses several short filler words like \"That's cool,\" \"Sure,\" \"Hmm,\" \"Okay, okay,\" \"Really,\" and \"Uh\" within their own turns. These are typical conversational markers and do not disrupt the flow; instead, they make the speech sound more natural and less robotic.\n\nThe interaction is very fluid. The brief overlaps are not harmful and contribute to the natural, back-and-forth feel of an engaged conversation. There are no awkward silences. The fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/116",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:12]] A: I'm curious about the film \"The Keeper\" and its main character Bert Trautmann. Could you tell me more about his background story and why the director found it so compelling to make a movie about him?\n[[00:13],[00:21]] B: Bert Trautmann was a German soldier who became a prisoner of war in Britain. His football skills helped him\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Sure.\n[[00:20],[00:31]] A: That sounds really interesting! What can you tell me about the actor David Kross and how he prepared for this challenging role? Did he have to learn any special skills for the part?\n[[00:32],[00:45]] B: David Kross trained for two and a half months with a German second-division football club. He also worked out in the gym to get in shape for the role. The director chose him because he matched Bert's friendly and noble personality.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] B: Mm.\n[[00:38],[00:39]] B: Sure.\n[[00:40],[00:41]] B: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user A asks two distinct questions in the dialogue. The first is about the background of Bert Trautmann, the main character of \"The Keeper,\" and why he was a compelling subject for a film. User B's response directly answers this by explaining he was a German POW in Britain whose football skills were notable, which is a relevant and coherent start to the story. User A's second question is about the actor David Kross and his preparation for the role. User B's second response is also highly relevant, detailing the actor's physical training and the director's reasons for casting him. The conversation progresses logically, with each response being a direct and coherent answer to the preceding question.\n\n\n\nThe interactional flow is smooth and natural. The pauses between the turns of speaker A and speaker B are brief (1 second each), indicating a normal and responsive conversational pace. There are several very short utterances from speaker B (e.g., \"Yeah, yeah,\" \"Sure,\" \"Mm\") that are timestamped within B's main speaking turns. These are not harmful overlaps where speakers talk over each other; rather, they seem to be minor, non-disruptive filler words or self-affirmations within B's own speech. They do not interrupt speaker A or disrupt the turn-taking, which remains crisp and efficient. As there are no prolonged pauses or disruptive overlaps between the two speakers, the fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/116",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:14]] A: Hey, Donald. I'm not going to beat around the bush here. This place is a mess and it smells bad. You're better than this, and I know you can do better. Let's work together to clean up this place and get it back to being livable again, okay?\n[[00:04],[00:05]] A: Really.\n[[00:06],[00:06]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:07],[00:08]] A: Mm.\n[[00:14],[00:21]] B: What are you talking about? This place is fine! It's not like anyone's going to come over and judge me for how my house\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Really.\n[[00:20],[00:33]] A: Donald, it's not about what others think. I'm worried about you. Living in this kind of environment isn't healthy or safe. Please, let me help you clean up. I promise it will make a world of difference.\n[[00:24],[00:25]] A: Really.\n[[00:26],[00:27]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:28],[00:29]] A: Really.\n[[00:34],[00:37]] B: Fine, whatever. But you're not going to tell me what to do, got it?\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:38],[00:48]] A: Of course not, Donald. I'm just here to help out as a friend. Let's start with the dishes in the sink. Do you have any gloves we can use? I don't want to get my hands all soapy.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] A: I see.\n[[00:48],[00:51]] B: Yeah, I think so. In that cabinet over there.\n[[00:51],[00:58]] A: There, that's better already! Now let's move on to the clothes on the floor. Can you put them in the hamper or fold them and put them away?\n[[00:58],[01:00]] B: Yeah, I can do that.\n[[01:00],[01:09]] A: See? That wasn't so bad, was it? Your place looks and smells a lot better already! Let's keep this up and your place will be looking great in no time!",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the provided dialogue for response relevance and interactional fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\nThe dialogue follows a very logical and coherent progression.\n1. Speaker A directly confronts Speaker B about the state of their home, expressing concern and offering help.\n2. Speaker B responds defensively, which is a natural reaction to the confrontation.\n3. Speaker A reframes the issue from being about judgment to being about health and safety, which is a persuasive and relevant counter-argument.\n4. Speaker B reluctantly agrees but sets a boundary (\"you're not going to tell me what to do\"), which is consistent with their initial defensiveness.\n5. Speaker A accepts the boundary and immediately shifts to a concrete, collaborative task (the dishes).\n6. The rest of the conversation shows them working together, with A providing encouragement and B complying.\n\nEvery turn is directly related to the previous one and contributes to the overall narrative of A helping B clean up. The topic is consistent, and the character motivations are clear and logical.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to analyze the dialogue for interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pause Analysis:**\nI will check the timestamps between turns:\n- A ends at [00:14], B starts at [00:14]. No pause.\n- B ends at [00:21], A starts at [00:20]. This is a 1-second overlap, which is brief and acceptable.\n- A ends at [00:33], B starts at [00:34]. A 1-second gap, which is a natural pause.\n- B ends at [00:37], A starts at [00:38]. A 1-second gap, which is a natural pause.\n- A ends at [00:48], B starts at [00:48]. No pause.\n- B ends at [00:51], A starts at [00:51]. No pause.\n- A ends at [00:58], B starts at [00:58]. No pause.\n- B ends at [01:00], A starts at [01:00]. No pause.\nThere are no long or awkward pauses between speaker turns. The conversation flows smoothly.\n\n**Overlap Analysis:**\n- The only overlap between the main speakers (A and B) is a 1-second overlap from [00:20] to [00:21]. This is very brief and typical of natural conversation, where a speaker might begin just before the other has completely finished. It is not disruptive.\n- The other short utterances (e.g., \"Really.\", \"Mhm.\") are listed under a speaker but occur during that same speaker's longer turn. This appears to be a transcription artifact rather than a true overlap between speakers. For example, B says \"Hmm.\" at [00:16] while B is in the middle of their own sentence that runs from [00:14] to [00:21]. These do not disrupt the flow between A and B.\n\nConclusion: The turn-taking is smooth, with no disruptive overlaps or long pauses. The interaction is very fluent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/116",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:12]] A: I really like that tagline suggestion for the yoga studio! Could you explain the different types of yoga classes in more detail and which one would be best for a complete beginner like me who's never tried yoga before?\n[[00:12],[00:23]] B: Sure thing! Let me break it down simply. Vinyasa is perfect for beginners because it's all about smooth, flowing movements\n[[00:16],[00:16]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Cool.\n[[00:22],[00:31]] A: Wait, before you continue, could you tell me more about how often beginners should attend Vinyasa classes to see benefits? I'm worried about overdoing it at first.\n[[00:31],[00:42]] B: That's a great question! For beginners, I'd recommend starting with two classes per week. This gives your body time to adjust while still building\n[[00:35],[00:35]] B: Really.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:41],[00:50]] A: You mentioned other types earlier - what about that hot yoga option? Is that something a beginner could try or should I wait until I'm more experienced?\n[[00:51],[01:02]] B: Hot yoga can be intense since the room's heated, but many studios offer beginner-friendly versions. I'd suggest trying regular Vinyasa first to learn\n[[00:54],[00:55]] B: Right.\n[[00:55],[00:56]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[01:01],[01:11]] A: That makes sense. Going back to my original question about desk jobs, could you explain exactly how restorative yoga would help with back and shoulder tension specifically?\n[[01:12],[01:22]] B: Absolutely! Restorative yoga uses props like bolsters and blankets to support your body in gentle stretches. It targets tight\n[[01:15],[01:16]] B: Right.\n[[01:17],[01:17]] B: Cool.\n[[01:20],[01:31]] A: That sounds ideal. One last thing - do you think morning or evening classes would be better for someone with a desk job who wants to relieve work-related tension?\n[[01:31],[01:44]] B: Evening classes are often better for desk workers because they help release the day's built-up tension. But morning classes can be great too if you want to start your day with better posture and less stiffness. Try both to see what works for you!\n[[01:35],[01:36]] B: Sure.\n[[01:37],[01:38]] B: Mm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance throughout. Speaker A asks a series of clear, related questions about yoga for beginners, specifically concerning different types, frequency, and benefits for someone with a desk job. Speaker B provides direct, logical, and helpful answers to each question. For example, when A asks about Vinyasa frequency ([00:22]), B gives a specific recommendation ([00:31]). When A asks about hot yoga ([00:41]), B explains its intensity and gives advice ([00:51]). The conversation follows a coherent and logical path, with each turn building upon the last.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the conversation flows smoothly and naturally. The overlaps present are either very brief backchanneling from Speaker B (e.g., \"Mhm,\" \"Right,\" \"Cool\") which indicate active listening, or they are natural, short interruptions from Speaker A to ask a clarifying or follow-up question (e.g., at [00:22], [00:41]). These overlaps are not extended or disruptive; instead, they contribute to the dynamic and interactive feel of the conversation. The turn-taking is crisp and effective.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/117",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hey, do you mind if I sit here?\n[[00:02],[00:04]] B: No, not at all. Go ahead.\n[[00:04],[00:07]] A: Thanks. I'm Janylah, by the way.\n[[00:07],[00:10]] B: Nice to meet you, Janylah. I'm Alex.\n[[00:10],[00:12]] A: So what brings you to this city?\n[[00:12],[00:23]] B: I just moved here for work. It's my first time living in a big city so it's been a bit of an adjustment but I'm enjoying it so far. How about you? What brought you here?\n[[00:16],[00:16]] B: Really.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:24],[00:36]] A: Oh, I just wanted a fresh start. I needed to get away from my small town and experience something new. And this city has always intrigued me so I figured why not give it a\n[[00:29],[00:30]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:35],[00:39]] B: Sorry to jump in, but what was it about this city that intrigued you the most?\n[[00:36],[00:37]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:40],[00:56]] A: Mainly the cultural diversity and the endless opportunities. But I haven't finished telling you about my move. It can be really liberating to just up and move to a new place without knowing anyone or anything about it. But it can also be daunting too. Have you found that to be the case at all?\n[[00:45],[00:45]] A: Right.\n[[00:47],[00:48]] A: Right.\n[[00:49],[00:50]] A: Um.\n[[00:57],[01:12]] B: Yeah, definitely! It's been tough meeting people and making friends but I'm slowly starting to settle in. This is my first time living on my own too so that's been an adjustment too but overall I'm really enjoying it and am excited for what the future holds here.\n[[01:01],[01:02]] B: Really.\n[[01:03],[01:04]] B: Ummm.\n[[01:04],[01:06]] B: Um.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation flows logically from an initial greeting and introduction to a deeper discussion about the speakers' reasons for moving to the city. Speaker A asks a question, and Speaker B provides a relevant and detailed answer, then reciprocates the question, which is a natural conversational pattern. When Speaker B interrupts at [00:35], it is not a random change of topic but a highly relevant follow-up question (\"what was it about this city that intrigued you the most?\") based directly on what Speaker A just said. Speaker A answers this question and then smoothly transitions back to their original point, maintaining topic coherence. Every turn is a logical and relevant response to the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between turns, indicating a smooth and natural conversational rhythm. The dialogue features several overlaps, but they are not disruptive. For instance, the overlap at [00:35] is a polite, cooperative interruption where Speaker B explicitly says, \"Sorry to jump in,\" showing active listening and engagement rather than a struggle for the floor. Other short overlaps (e.g., \"Mhm,\" \"Right,\" \"Ummm\") are typical backchannels or fillers that occur within a speaker's own turn, which is very common in natural human speech and does not hinder the flow of communication. Overall, the turn-taking is seamless and feels very natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/117",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:13]] A: That's fascinating how some traditions survived in Ireland. Could you explain more about how the Druid knowledge was passed down orally and what specific elements blended with Christianity later on?\n[[00:14],[00:30]] B: Sure! The Druids relied heavily on memory and storytelling to keep their traditions alive. They trained for years to memorize sacred texts and rituals. When Christianity arrived, some Druid symbols like\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Cool.\n[[00:21],[00:21]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:22],[00:23]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:29],[00:44]] A: I didn't realize the Celtic cross had Druid origins—that's really interesting. But how did the Romans enforce their ban on Druid practices across such a large territory? Was it consistent everywhere or did enforcement vary by region?\n[[00:45],[00:58]] B: Roman enforcement was definitely uneven. In heavily controlled areas like Gaul, they were strict—burning sacred groves and arresting Druids. But in places like Britain and Ireland,\n[[00:49],[00:49]] B: Really.\n[[00:50],[00:51]] B: Right.\n[[00:52],[00:53]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:57],[01:12]] A: That makes sense—so it was really about Roman military presence more than uniform policy. Speaking of military presence, how did the Druids initially respond when the Romans first invaded? Were there organized resistance efforts?\n[[01:13],[01:30]] B: At first, some Druids actively resisted—they were spiritual leaders but also political advisors. They helped organize rebellions, like Boudica's uprising in Britain. But after major defeats, many Druids went into hiding or fled\n[[01:18],[01:19]] B: Right.\n[[01:20],[01:20]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[01:21],[01:22]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[01:29],[01:40]] A: It sounds like the Druids were much more than just priests—they were key to Celtic identity. Do we have any records of what daily life was like for an average Druid before the Romans came?\n[[01:40],[01:56]] B: Before Rome, Druids were scholars, judges, and healers—not just religious figures. They spent years training in sacred groves, memorizing laws and histories. They settled disputes, advised kings, and\n[[01:45],[01:46]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[01:54],[02:05]] A: That’s a much richer picture than I imagined. Last question—are there any modern traditions or cultural practices that still reflect these ancient Druid influences today?\n[[02:05],[02:27]] B: Absolutely! Many Celtic festivals like Samhain evolved into modern Halloween. The reverence for nature in neo-pagan movements draws from Druid beliefs. Even some folk healing practices and storytelling traditions in rural areas can trace roots back to the Druids. Their legacy lives on in subtle but meaningful ways.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B consistently provides direct and informative answers to Speaker A's questions about Druid history. The conversation follows a logical progression, starting with the oral traditions of Druids, moving to their interactions with the Romans, then their societal roles, and finally their modern-day influence. Each response is topically coherent and builds upon the previous turn, creating a clear and engaging narrative. There are no instances of misunderstanding, irrelevant information, or logical inconsistencies.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. The turn-taking is smooth and natural. The pauses between turns are consistently short (1 second or less), indicating an engaged and well-paced conversation. While there are several instances of brief overlap (e.g., A begins speaking a second or two before B has finished), these are not disruptive. Instead, they function as natural interjections that show A is actively listening and ready with a follow-up question. The backchanneling cues (e.g., \"Mm hmm,\" \"Right\") are brief and appropriately placed, further contributing to a natural conversational flow. There are no extended, competitive overlaps or long, awkward silences that would harm fluency.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/117",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hey, boss. I wanted to talk to you about something.\n[[00:03],[00:03]] B: Yeah, what's up?\n[[00:04],[00:11]] A: I'm starting to feel a little overwhelmed at work. My projects are piling up and I'm falling behind on my\n[[00:06],[00:08]] A: Sure.\n[[00:10],[00:17]] B: Deadlines, right? We've been noticing that you've been struggling lately. Your work is slipping and you're not meeting our expectations.\n[[00:14],[00:14]] B: Sure.\n[[00:19],[00:23]] A: I know, and I'm sorry. I'm just having a hard time keeping up right now.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] A: Sure.\n[[00:25],[00:33]] B: We understand that things can get tough, but we can't have our employees falling behind. We're going to have to consider other options if there's no improvement soon.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: Cool.\n[[00:35],[00:41]] A: Wait, are you saying you're letting me go? I mean, is there any way I can improve or get some help before it comes to that?\n[[00:37],[00:38]] A: Mm.\n[[00:43],[00:53]] B: I understand your concern, but we've already taken into account the support you've been given. Unfortunately, we can't keep you on. We'll be happy to provide a positive reference for you, though.\n[[00:46],[00:48]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:49],[00:50]] B: Uh.\n[[00:54],[00:56]] A: Thank you, boss.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. The conversation follows a logical and coherent path from start to finish. Speaker A introduces a problem (feeling overwhelmed), and Speaker B responds directly to it, confirming that A's performance has been noticed. The topic then progresses logically to a warning, a plea for a second chance, and a final decision. Each speaker's turn is a direct and relevant response to what was just said. For example, when B warns that \"we're going to have to consider other options,\" A's response, \"Wait, are you saying you're letting me go?\" is a perfectly logical and coherent question. The core content of the conversation is consistent and on-topic throughout. The strange interjections like \"Sure\" and \"That's cool\" appear to be artifacts but do not derail the primary topic of the conversation.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent based on the specific criteria of pauses and overlaps. There are no long pauses between turns; the gaps are consistently short (1-2 seconds), which maintains a natural conversational flow. There is one brief, one-second overlap from [[00:10],[00:11]] where B begins speaking as A is finishing their sentence. This type of short overlap is very common in natural speech and is not disruptive. The dialogue does not contain any extended, harmful overlaps where speakers talk over each other for a prolonged period. Therefore, according to the criteria provided, the fluency is high.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/118",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: I'm looking for a hotel called the Arbury Lodge Guesthouse.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:03],[00:09]] B: The Arbury Lodge Guesthouse is a 4-star guesthouse in the north area. Would you like to\n[[00:06],[00:06]] B: Really.\n[[00:08],[00:15]] A: Sorry to jump in, but could you confirm if it's available for 5 people and for 5 nights starting Wednesday?\n[[00:11],[00:11]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:16],[00:25]] B: Yes, it is available. You are all set. The reference number is PWYHRHPR. Can I help you with anything else today?\n[[00:21],[00:22]] B: Sure.\n[[00:25],[00:27]] A: No, that's all. Thank you for your help.\n[[00:29],[00:34]] B: Thank you for contacting Cambridge TownInfo Centre. Have a wonderful day!\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Uh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user (A) clearly states their goal of finding a specific guesthouse. The agent (B) correctly identifies the guesthouse and starts providing relevant information. The user then interrupts to add specific booking requirements (number of people, nights, start day). The agent successfully processes this more complex request, confirms the booking, and provides a reference number. The dialogue concludes logically with both parties acknowledging the successful completion of the task. All responses are directly relevant, logically consistent, and contribute to a coherent and efficient conversation.\n\n\n\nThe interaction flows smoothly. There is a notable overlap between [[00:08]-[00:15]] and [[00:03]-[00:09]] where the user (A) politely interrupts the agent (B) to refine their query. This type of interruption (\"Sorry to jump in...\") is natural and serves to make the conversation more efficient, rather than hindering it. Other minor overlaps are self-overlaps or backchannels (e.g., \"Mm hmm\", \"Uh\") which are very brief and do not disrupt the flow. The pauses between turns are minimal and fall within the range of natural conversation (e.g., a 1-second pause at [00:15] and a 2-second pause at [00:27]). There are no prolonged or awkward silences. Overall, the interactional fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/118",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: What did you think of the book?\n[[00:03],[00:07]] B: I thought it was really good. I liked the characters and the\n[[00:04],[00:05]] B: Right.\n[[00:06],[00:13]] A: Sorry to jump in, but which character did you find the most compelling? I was really drawn to the protagonist's journey.\n[[00:09],[00:09]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:13],[00:25]] B: I was actually going to say the story was great too, but to answer your question, I found the main character's growth really compelling. I especially liked the part where he goes on a journey to find himself.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] B: Sure.\n[[00:26],[00:36]] A: Yes, I thought that was really well done. I also liked how the author explored different themes, like love and identity, which made the protagonist's journey even more meaningful.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] A: Cool.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] A: Mm.\n[[00:38],[00:44]] B: Loss, right? That theme really stood out to me too. It added so much depth to the story.\n[[00:40],[00:41]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:45],[00:50]] A: Exactly, those were definitely important themes in the book. What did you think of the ending?\n[[00:47],[00:48]] A: Cool.\n[[00:50],[00:55]] B: I thought it was a bit abrupt, but overall I liked it. It wrapped up the story nicely.\n[[00:52],[00:53]] B: Mm.\n[[00:57],[01:03]] A: Yeah, I agree with you. It was a bit sudden, but it didn't take away from the book as a whole.\n[[00:59],[01:00]] A: Um.\n[[01:04],[01:07]] B: Exactly. So overall, you would recommend it?\n[[01:05],[01:06]] B: That's cool.\n[[01:09],[01:13]] A: Definitely. I think anyone who likes a good journey story would enjoy it.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and coherence of the dialogue.\n\n1. **A's opening question [[00:00],[00:01]]**: \"What did you think of the book?\" sets the topic.\n2. **B's response [[00:03],[00:07]]**: B begins to answer directly, stating they liked it and mentioning the characters. This is a relevant start.\n3. **A's interruption [[00:06],[00:13]]**: Although an interruption, A's question about a specific character is a direct and logical follow-up to B's mention of \"characters.\" A shows they are actively listening.\n4. **B's response [[00:13],[00:25]]**: B acknowledges the interruption, then directly answers A's question about the most compelling character, aligning with A's own interest in the protagonist. This is highly relevant.\n5. **A's turn [[00:26],[00:36]]**: A agrees with B and expands on the topic by introducing related themes like \"love and identity,\" which logically connects to the protagonist's journey.\n6. **B's turn [[00:38],[00:44]]**: B builds on A's point about themes, adding \"loss\" to the discussion. This shows coherent topic development.\n7. **Subsequent turns**: The conversation continues to be highly coherent, moving from themes to the book's ending ([[00:45],[00:50]]), and finally to a recommendation ([[01:04],[01:07]]).\n\nEach turn logically follows from the previous one. The speakers build on each other's ideas, creating a cohesive and topically consistent conversation about the book. There are no irrelevant or illogical responses.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pauses:**\n- [[00:01],[00:03]]: A 2-second pause before B answers. This is a normal, brief thinking pause.\n- [[00:25],[00:26]]: A 1-second pause. Natural turn-taking.\n- [[00:36],[00:38]]: A 2-second pause. Natural.\n- [[00:55],[00:57]]: A 2-second pause. Natural.\n- [[01:07],[01:09]]: A 2-second pause. Natural.\nThere are no prolonged or awkward pauses in the dialogue. The gaps between turns are all short and typical of a natural conversation.\n\n**Overlaps:**\n- [[00:06],[00:07]]: There is a one-second overlap where A begins speaking before B finishes. A immediately acknowledges this by saying, \"Sorry to jump in.\" This is a common feature of engaged conversation and is handled politely, so it does not harm fluency.\n- Other short utterances like \"Right\" ([[00:04],[00:05]]), \"Okay,okay\" ([[00:09],[00:09]]), \"Sure\" ([[00:20],[00:21]]), etc., are brief backchannels or fillers. They are very short and do not disrupt the main speaker's turn or the overall flow of the conversation. They contribute to the naturalistic feel of the dialogue.\n\nThe interaction is fluid. The one significant overlap is managed appropriately and is not extended. There are no detrimental pauses.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/118",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: What kind of animal should I worry about in the Amazon?\n[[00:00],[00:03]] A: Right.\n[[00:03],[00:10]] B: Uh. You don't really have to worry about animals in the Amazon. I've never been there, but I hear the bugs are\n[[00:06],[00:06]] B: Uh.\n[[00:09],[00:15]] A: Sorry to jump in, but when you say bugs, are you talking about mosquitoes or something more dangerous?\n[[00:10],[00:11]] A: Right.\n[[00:12],[00:13]] A: Right.\n[[00:15],[00:24]] B: Mosquitoes are definitely a concern, but I was going to mention that it's a big jungle, so there are all sorts of insects, and some can carry diseases.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Sure.\n[[00:20],[00:20]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:24],[00:29]] A: Huh, that's kind of disappointing. What should I be afraid of in other countries?\n[[00:26],[00:27]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:29],[00:31]] B: How about Australia?\n[[00:31],[00:34]] A: Is there really something to be afraid of?\n[[00:32],[00:33]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:35],[00:43]] B: Well, they are deadly animals there. You should be careful around koalas. And you should stay away from saltwater crocodiles, which are really dangerous.\n[[00:37],[00:37]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:38],[00:39]] B: Sure.\n[[00:43],[00:47]] A: Wait, koalas? I thought they were harmless!\n[[00:47],[00:56]] B: Yes, they look harmless, but they can be aggressive if provoked. I was also going to mention bears, but koalas are definitely something to watch out for too.\n[[00:56],[01:00]] A: Oh - but don't the koalas have all of those cute little chlamydia?\n[[01:01],[01:02]] B: I think so.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance.\n\n1. **Initial Question & Answer:** A asks about dangerous animals in the Amazon. B responds that bugs are a bigger concern than animals. This is a relevant and informative answer, even if it slightly reframes the user's initial concern.\n2. **Clarification:** A interrupts to ask for clarification on \"bugs.\" This is a perfectly relevant and logical follow-up question.\n3. **Topic Shift:** A expresses disappointment and then broadens the question to \"other countries.\" This is a clear and logical topic shift initiated by the speaker.\n4. **New Topic Development:** B suggests Australia, and the conversation proceeds to discuss dangerous animals there (crocodiles, koalas). All subsequent turns from both speakers are directly related to this topic. A expresses surprise about koalas, and B clarifies. This exchange is coherent and logical.\n5. **Final Comment:** A's final comment about chlamydia in koalas is a bit of a tangent but is still directly linked to the subject of koalas. It functions as a piece of dark humor that doesn't break the conversational coherence.\n\nOverall, the dialogue is thematically consistent. The topic shift is natural, and all responses are logically connected to the preceding turns.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:** I will check the timestamps for gaps between turns.\n * [[00:03],[00:03]]: No pause.\n * [[00:15],[00:15]]: No pause.\n * [[00:24],[00:24]]: No pause.\n * [[00:29],[00:29]]: No pause.\n * [[00:31],[00:31]]: No pause.\n * [[00:34],[00:35]]: A 1-second pause, which is a natural transition time.\n * [[00:43],[00:43]]: No pause.\n * [[00:47],[00:47]]: No pause.\n * [[01:00],[01:01]]: A 1-second pause, which is natural.\n There are no prolonged or awkward pauses in the conversation. The turn-taking is smooth.\n\n2. **Overlaps:** I will check the timestamps for overlapping speech.\n * [[00:09],[00:10]]: There is a 1-second overlap where A interrupts B. A explicitly signals this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" making it a polite and natural interruption for clarification, not a fluency issue.\n * The other overlaps noted in the transcript (e.g., [[00:00],[00:03]] A and [[00:00],[00:03]] A) are the same speaker, likely representing backchannels or filler words spoken during their own main utterance, which is common in natural speech and not an interactional fluency problem.\n\nThe interaction flows very well. Turn-taking is crisp, and the one clear overlap between speakers is handled in a socially appropriate manner.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/119",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hi, Carlton. Welcome to the store.\n[[00:02],[00:04]] B: Hi, Lawren. Thanks for inviting me.\n[[00:05],[00:11]] A: Of course. I wanted you to feel like you're a part of the community and that I'm here for you if you need\n[[00:07],[00:08]] A: Mm.\n[[00:10],[00:16]] B: Sorry, I just wanted to say, it's really nice to see a store owner who cares about community. It makes a big difference.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: I see.\n[[00:17],[00:19]] A: That means a lot, Lawren. I appreciate it.\n[[00:20],[00:23]] B: No problem. So, what brings you in today?\n[[00:23],[00:28]] A: I'm just looking around. I don't really need anything specific, just exploring.\n[[00:24],[00:27]] A: Right.\n[[00:28],[00:33]] B: Actually, I was wondering, do you have any recommendations for someone new to the area?\n[[00:30],[00:31]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:34],[00:40]] A: That's great. Let me know if you need any help. I can also suggest some local spots you might enjoy.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:40],[00:42]] B: I will. Thanks again, Lawren.\n[[00:42],[00:45]] A: You're welcome, Carlton. Have a good day.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains consistent topic coherence throughout the interaction. It begins with a store owner (A) welcoming a new resident (B), and the conversation logically progresses from a general welcome to a more specific offer of help and recommendations for the area. Speaker B's question at [00:28] about recommendations is a relevant and natural follow-up in this context. Speaker A's response at [00:34] is also directly relevant, offering help and local suggestions. Although there are a couple of confusing statements (e.g., A addressing B by their own name at [00:17], and B asking the store owner \"what brings you in today?\" at [00:20]), the speakers move past these points smoothly and the overall thematic integrity of the conversation is not compromised. The responses are consistently on-topic and logically connected.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency of the dialogue is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth and natural, with no prolonged or awkward pauses between speakers. The one instance of overlap occurs from [00:10] to [00:11], but it is very brief (about one second) and is handled politely by speaker B (\"Sorry, I just wanted to say...\"). This type of brief, managed overlap is characteristic of natural, engaged conversation and does not harm the fluency. Overall, the dialogue flows without any significant interruptions or delays.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/119",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: I'm doing good, just got out of the bathroom.\n[[00:04],[00:08]] B: Oh, okay. Did you wash your\n[[00:05],[00:06]] B: Really.\n[[00:07],[00:09]] A: Yeah, I always do.\n[[00:10],[00:15]] B: That's good. You should always wash your hands after using the restroom.\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: Mm.\n[[00:16],[00:20]] A: I know. It's just a habit of mine to make sure I do it thoroughly.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] A: Uh.\n[[00:22],[00:28]] B: Actually, speaking of habits, do you think it's something we should remind others about more often?\n[[00:25],[00:26]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:29],[00:34]] A: Definitely, especially in public spaces. But as I was saying, it's just a habit of mine.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] A: Um.\n[[00:36],[00:38]] B: Well, it's a good habit to have.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue transcript based on Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\n\n1. **Response Relevance Analysis:**\n * A starts by saying they just got out of the bathroom.\n * B responds by starting to ask if A washed their hands, a very relevant and logical follow-up.\n * A answers the implied question (\"Yeah, I always do\"), showing good coherence.\n * B confirms the importance of this action.\n * A adds that it's a habit.\n * B uses the word \"habit\" to pivot the conversation to a slightly broader, but still related, topic about reminding others. This is a natural topic shift.\n * A answers B's question and then circles back to their previous point.\n * B responds to A's point, acknowledging it as a \"good habit\".\n * The entire dialogue is coherent and logically consistent. Each turn is a direct and relevant response to the previous one.\n\n2. **Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\n * **Pauses:** I will check the gaps between turns.\n * [[00:02],[00:04]]: 2-second pause. Acceptable.\n * [[00:09],[00:10]]: 1-second pause. Acceptable.\n * [[00:15],[00:16]]: 1-second pause. Acceptable.\n * [[00:20],[00:22]]: 2-second pause. Acceptable.\n * [[00:28],[00:29]]: 1-second pause. Acceptable.\n * [[00:34],[00:36]]: 2-second pause. Acceptable.\n * There are no prolonged, harmful pauses.\n * **Overlaps:** I will check for overlapping timestamps.\n * [[00:07],[00:09]] A overlaps with [[00:04],[00:08]] B. A starts answering before B has fully finished their question. This is a very common and natural type of overlap that shows engagement. It is not disruptive.\n * The other overlaps ([[00:05],[00:06]], [[00:12],[00:13]], [[00:18],[00:19]], [[00:25],[00:26]], [[00:31],[00:32]]) are short, single-word utterances or fillers (backchannels) that overlap with the main speaker's own turn. These are typical of natural speech and do not hinder the interaction.\n * There are no extended, competitive overlaps that would make the dialogue hard to follow.\n\n3. **Overall Conclusion:**\n * Response Relevance is excellent.\n * Interactional Fluency is excellent.\n * Therefore, the dialogue qualifies for the highest score.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency of the dialogue is excellent. The pauses between turns are all brief and natural, ranging from one to two seconds, which contributes to a smooth conversational rhythm. There are no awkwardly long silences. The overlaps present are minor and characteristic of natural, engaged conversation. For instance, Speaker A begins their response [[00:07],[00:09]] slightly before Speaker B finishes their question [[00:04],[00:08]], which indicates anticipation rather than interruption. Other overlaps are short backchannels or fillers that do not disrupt the flow. There are no extended or competitive overlaps that would harm the quality of the interaction.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/119",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:12]] A: That sounds really interesting! Could you tell me more about what specific paintings by Rembrandt are displayed at his museum and what makes them so special? I'd love to understand why they're considered masterpieces.\n[[00:12],[00:18]] B: The Rembrandt House has some of his most famous works, like \"The Night Watch\"\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Cool.\n[[00:17],[00:26]] A: Wait, I thought \"The Night Watch\" was at the Rijksmuseum? Could you clarify which paintings are actually at his house museum versus other museums?\n[[00:26],[00:37]] B: You're absolutely right! At his house museum, you'll see smaller works and sketches rather than the big famous ones. It's more\n[[00:30],[00:30]] B: Cool.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Really.\n[[00:33],[00:33]] B: Really.\n[[00:36],[00:46]] A: That makes sense! So if I visit, what else can I expect to learn about his creative process or personal life that I wouldn't find in other museums?\n[[00:46],[00:53]] B: The museum shows how he mixed paints and taught students, plus personal items like letters. You really\n[[00:49],[00:50]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:52],[01:02]] A: That sounds amazing! While we're on the topic, could you also explain how Johan Cruyff's stadium keeps his legacy alive beyond just hosting matches?\n[[01:02],[01:09]] B: The stadium has interactive exhibits about his playing style and coaching philosophy. They even offer\n[[01:04],[01:05]] B: Right.\n[[01:06],[01:06]] B: Mhm.\n[[01:08],[01:14]] A: That's cool! Do they have any special events or programs for fans who want to learn more about his impact on the sport?\n[[01:14],[01:23]] B: Yes! They host youth clinics using his training methods and have anniversary events where former teammates share stories about his career.\n[[01:17],[01:18]] B: Um.\n[[01:18],[01:19]] B: Cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Speaker B makes an initial factual error by placing \"The Night Watch\" at the Rembrandt House Museum. However, Speaker A correctly identifies this error and asks for clarification. Speaker B then graciously accepts the correction (\"You're absolutely right!\") and provides the accurate information, explaining the type of art found at the house museum. This collaborative correction strengthens the interaction. The conversation then flows logically, with A asking relevant follow-up questions about Rembrandt's life and then smoothly transitioning to a new but related topic (another famous Dutch figure, Johan Cruyff). All subsequent responses are directly relevant to the questions asked, maintaining topic coherence throughout.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between turns; in fact, the turn-taking is immediate and seamless. The few overlaps that occur between speakers (e.g., [00:17]-[00:18], [01:08]-[01:09]) are very brief (one second) and typical of natural, engaged conversation, where one speaker begins just as the other is finishing. The other noted overlaps are instances of Speaker B using short filler words (\"Cool,\" \"Yeah,\" \"Mhm\") during their own speaking turn. These are self-interruptions and do not disrupt the flow of conversation between the two participants. The overall pace is smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/120",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:05]] A: Mom, I can't believe I'm finally awake. It feels like I've been in a dream for so long.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: I see.\n[[00:06],[00:14]] B: I know, sweetheart. We were all so worried about you. But we're just glad you're finally awake and on the road to recovery.\n[[00:08],[00:09]] B: Sure.\n[[00:10],[00:11]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:14],[00:21]] A: It's all just such a blur. I don't even remember what happened before the accident. Do you know what happened?\n[[00:16],[00:17]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] A: Uh.\n[[00:21],[00:37]] B: From what we could piece together, it seems that you were hit by a car while crossing the street. You suffered some serious injuries, but thanks to the quick response of the paramedics and our prayers, you pulled through. But there's no need to worry about that now, okay? You just focus on\n[[00:26],[00:27]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:28],[00:29]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:30],[00:30]] B: I see.\n[[00:37],[00:42]] A: Mom, do you think I'll be able to walk again? I mean, the doctors haven't said much about my long-term recovery.\n[[00:38],[00:40]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:42],[00:57]] B: The doctors are optimistic, but they did mention that it would take time and a lot of physical therapy. You need to stay positive and give it your all. But I haven't mentioned that you should leave everything else to us so you can concentrate solely on your recovery.\n[[00:47],[00:48]] B: Sure.\n[[00:58],[01:01]] A: Yeah, I guess you're right. It's just all so surreal.\n[[01:02],[01:10]] B: I know, honey. But like I said, you just focus on getting better and leave everything else to us. We're here for you, no matter what.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue for response relevance and interactional fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n1. **A [[00:00],[00:05]]** starts the conversation by expressing disbelief and confusion after waking up, setting a clear context of someone recovering from a serious event.\n2. **B [[00:06],[00:14]]** responds as a caring mother, acknowledging A's feelings, expressing relief, and offering encouragement. This is a perfectly relevant and empathetic response.\n3. **A [[00:14],[00:21]]** follows up logically by asking about the accident, which they can't remember. This is a coherent continuation of the topic.\n4. **B [[00:21],[00:37]]** answers the question directly by explaining what happened and then transitions into a supportive role, telling A not to worry. This is a logical and caring response.\n5. **A [[00:37],[00:42]]** shifts the topic to a very relevant and pressing concern: their ability to walk again. This is a natural progression of thought for someone in this situation.\n6. **B [[00:42],[00:57]]** addresses this concern by relaying the doctors' optimistic but cautious prognosis and again reinforces the message of focusing on recovery.\n7. **A [[00:58],[01:01]]** accepts the advice while also expressing the overwhelming nature of the situation (\"it's just all so surreal\"). This is a believable and relevant emotional response.\n8. **B [[01:02],[01:10]]** ends the exchange by validating A's feelings and reiterating the promise of support.\n\nOverall, the dialogue is thematically consistent and logically structured. Each turn is a direct and appropriate response to the previous one, creating a coherent and believable narrative.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to analyze the interactional fluency, specifically looking for extended overlaps and long pauses.\n\n**Pause Analysis:**\n- There is a 1-second pause between A's turn ending at [00:05] and B's turn starting at [00:06].\n- There are no pauses between the other main speaker turns.\n- The pauses that do exist are brief and natural for conversation. There are no prolonged or awkward silences.\n\n**Overlap Analysis:**\nThe transcript contains numerous short utterances (e.g., \"I see\", \"Sure\", \"Okay, okay\", \"Mm hmm\") that are timed during another person's main speaking turn. The transcription format incorrectly attributes these backchannels to the person who is already speaking. For example, at [[00:08],[00:09]], B says \"Sure\" while B is in the middle of their main sentence. Logically, this backchannel would be from A, indicating they are listening.\n\nAssuming this is a transcription error and the backchannels are from the non-speaking party:\n- All overlaps are very short, typically 1-2 seconds.\n- They function as backchannels or acknowledgements (e.g., \"Yeah, yeah\", \"Uh huh\"), which is a hallmark of engaged, fluent conversation.\n- They do not disrupt the speaker or constitute a fight for the conversational floor. They are supportive rather than harmful.\n\nGiven that there are no long pauses and the overlaps are brief and functional, the interactional fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/120",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: Could you break down in simpler terms how movie makers create realistic fire and water effects? I'm especially curious about the key steps they take to make these effects blend naturally into scenes.\n[[00:12],[00:28]] B: Absolutely! Let's start with fire effects. First, they study real fire closely to understand how flames move and behave. Then they use special computer programs to recreate that movement\n[[00:17],[00:17]] B: Cool.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Sure.\n[[00:20],[00:20]] B: Right.\n[[00:27],[00:35]] A: Wait, could you explain more about how they study real fire? Do they just watch videos or do they actually film real flames for reference?\n[[00:36],[00:47]] B: Great question! They do both actually. Filmmakers often shoot real fire footage specifically for reference. They analyze how flames react to\n[[00:40],[00:41]] B: Mm.\n[[00:46],[00:54]] A: That makes sense. Now about water effects - what are the main differences in how they approach water compared to fire effects?\n[[00:55],[01:07]] B: Water's trickier because it's transparent and reflects light differently. They still study real water first - waves, splashes, how liquid moves. The\n[[01:01],[01:02]] B: Um.\n[[01:06],[01:14]] A: When actors interact with these effects, how do they make it look real? Like if someone walks through water or stands near fire?\n[[01:14],[01:27]] B: That's where the magic happens! For water scenes, they add digital splashes around feet and make clothes look wet. With fire, they carefully adjust the lighting on actors' faces to\n[[01:18],[01:19]] B: Ummm.\n[[01:20],[01:20]] B: I see.\n[[01:21],[01:22]] B: Mhm.\n[[01:26],[01:32]] A: What about when things go wrong? What are the most common mistakes that make these effects look fake to audiences?\n[[01:32],[01:42]] B: The biggest giveaway is usually bad lighting. If the fire doesn't cast the right glow or water doesn't reflect properly, it stands out. Also,\n[[01:35],[01:36]] B: I see.\n[[01:37],[01:37]] B: I see.\n[[01:42],[01:51]] A: That's fascinating! One last thing - how long does it typically take to create a really convincing fire or water effect for a movie scene?\n[[01:52],[02:09]] B: It varies a lot, but even a few seconds of good effects can take weeks. Complex water simulations might run for days just to calculate the movement. Then there's all the lighting and compositing work. That's why big effects shots are so expensive and time-consuming to create!",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue based on Response Relevance.\n\n1. **A's initial question [[00:00],[00:11]]**: A asks for a simple explanation of how fire and water effects are created in movies.\n2. **B's response [[00:12],[00:28]]**: B starts by addressing the fire effects part of the question directly, which is a logical way to begin. The response is relevant.\n3. **A's follow-up [[00:27],[00:35]]**: A asks for clarification on a specific point B made (\"study real fire\"). This shows A is engaged and the question is a direct and relevant follow-up.\n4. **B's response [[00:36],[00:47]]**: B answers A's specific question about studying fire, providing more detail. The answer is perfectly relevant.\n5. **A's next question [[00:46],[00:54]]**: A transitions to the second part of their original question (water effects), asking for a comparison. This is a coherent and logical progression of the topic.\n6. **B's response [[00:55],[01:07]]**: B directly addresses the question about water effects and compares the process to fire effects. The response is relevant.\n7. **Subsequent turns**: The rest of the conversation continues this pattern. A asks relevant, specific follow-up questions (actor interaction, common mistakes, time to create), and B provides direct, on-topic answers for each.\n\nThe entire dialogue remains focused on the topic of movie special effects. Each turn logically follows the previous one, creating a coherent and easy-to-follow conversation. There are no instances of irrelevant or inconsistent responses.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue based on Interactional Fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses**: I will check the time gap between the end of one speaker's turn and the start of the next.\n * A ends at [00:11], B starts at [00:12] -> 1-second pause. (Good)\n * A ends at [00:35], B starts at [00:36] -> 1-second pause. (Good)\n * A ends at [00:54], B starts at [00:55] -> 1-second pause. (Good)\n * A ends at [01:14], B starts at [01:14] -> 0-second pause. (Good)\n * A ends at [01:32], B starts at [01:32] -> 0-second pause. (Good)\n * A ends at [01:51], B starts at [01:52] -> 1-second pause. (Good)\n There are no long, awkward pauses. The turn-taking is prompt and natural.\n\n2. **Overlaps**: I will check for instances where both speakers are talking at the same time.\n * [[00:27],[00:28]]: A begins speaking 1 second before B finishes. This is a very brief, natural overlap, typical of an engaged listener interjecting with a question. Not harmful.\n * [[00:46],[00:47]]: A begins speaking 1 second before B finishes. Again, a brief and natural overlap.\n * [[01:06],[01:07]]: A begins speaking 1 second before B finishes. Another brief and natural overlap.\n * [[01:26],[01:27]]: A begins speaking 1 second before B finishes. Another brief and natural overlap.\n * [[01:42],[01:42]]: A and B start talking at the same time for a moment, with A continuing the turn. This is a common occurrence in natural speech and is not disruptive.\n\nThe short interjections from speaker B during their own turns (e.g., [[00:17],[00:17]] \"Cool\", [[01:20],[01:20]] \"I see\") are filler words or self-corrections and do not constitute harmful overlaps with speaker A. Overall, the fluency is excellent. The overlaps are brief and characteristic of a natural, interactive conversation, not a disruptive one.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/120",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:15]] A: Could you tell me more about that famous shower scene from Psycho? What makes it so special and why do people still talk about it decades later? I'm really curious about the techniques Hitchcock used to create such an unforgettable moment.\n[[00:16],[00:30]] B: The shower scene in Psycho is legendary for good reason. Hitchcock used quick cuts and dramatic music to create intense fear without showing much violence. The scene lasts only 45 seconds\n[[00:21],[00:21]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:22],[00:23]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:24],[00:25]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:29],[00:43]] A: That's fascinating! Since we're talking about iconic scenes, could you explain what makes the \"Here's Johnny\" moment from The Shining so memorable? What techniques did Kubrick use to make it stand out among horror movie scenes?\n[[00:44],[01:06]] B: Jack Nicholson's performance in The Shining is unforgettable, especially that door-breaking scene. Kubrick used a wide-angle lens to make the hallway look distorted and scary. Nicholson improvised the \"Here's Johnny\" line, which became instantly iconic. The slow build-up of tension makes this scene truly terrifying.\n[[00:51],[00:52]] B: I see.\n[[00:53],[00:54]] B: Really.\n[[00:55],[00:56]] B: That's cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the provided dialogue transcript for response relevance and interactional fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n1. **A's first turn to B's first response:** Speaker A asks a specific question about the shower scene in *Psycho*. Speaker B provides a direct, informative, and relevant answer, explaining the techniques used and the scene's impact. The response is perfectly coherent.\n2. **A's second turn to B's second response:** Speaker A acknowledges B's answer and smoothly transitions to a related topic—another iconic horror scene from *The Shining*. This is a logical progression. Speaker B again provides a relevant and detailed answer, explaining the directorial techniques and acting choices that make the scene memorable.\n3. **Overall Coherence:** The conversation is logically consistent and maintains topic coherence throughout. The responses directly address the questions asked.\n\n**Conclusion:** The response relevance is excellent.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the provided dialogue transcript for interactional fluency, focusing on pauses and overlaps.\n\n**Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\n1. **Pauses:** There is a 1-second pause between speaker turns (e.g., [00:15]-[00:16] and [00:43]-[00:44]). These are natural, brief pauses and do not disrupt the conversational flow. There are no prolonged or awkward silences.\n2. **Overlaps:** The transcript shows several instances where Speaker B seems to be speaking over themselves with short backchanneling phrases (e.g., \"Yeah, yeah\" at [00:21] during their own turn from [00:16] to [00:30]). This is almost certainly a transcription error where the listener's (Speaker A's) brief, encouraging interjections were misattributed to the speaker (B). When viewed as normal backchanneling from the listener, these short overlaps are not disruptive and indicate active listening, contributing to a natural and fluent interaction. They do not constitute harmful, extended overlaps where both speakers are trying to take the floor.\n\n**Conclusion:** Assuming the overlaps are misattributed backchannels from the listener, the interactional fluency is excellent, characterized by smooth turn-taking and natural pacing.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/120",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: I need a hotel for tonight please.\n[[00:03],[00:09]] B: I can help you with that. Do you have a particular price point you are looking\n[[00:05],[00:06]] B: Right.\n[[00:08],[00:10]] A: It doesn't matter but I do need free parking.\n[[00:11],[00:18]] B: I have several hotels matching your request available. What part of town would you prefer to stay in, or is any location fine?\n[[00:13],[00:15]] B: Really.\n[[00:19],[00:24]] A: I have no preference on the part of town, but I do need free wifi as well.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] A: Sure.\n[[00:26],[00:29]] B: Ok, that narrows it down to 8 options for you. Any other preferences?\n[[00:27],[00:28]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:31],[00:33]] A: I would like it to be a guesthouse.\n[[00:33],[00:40]] B: Well there are 21 of those spread across town so I recommend the Arbury Lodge Guesthouse on the North side. Would you like me to book it?\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: Uh.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] B: I see.\n[[00:42],[00:43]] A: Yes, can you please?\n[[00:45],[00:47]] B: What day would you like me to book the hotel for?\n[[00:48],[00:54]] A: I apologize for not mentioning it before, please book it starting Sunday for 1 person for five days?\n[[00:51],[00:52]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:56],[01:03]] B: You're all set for Sunday. Your reference number is NIVMCDK1. Is there anything else I can help with?\n[[00:59],[01:00]] B: Uh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user and the agent are collaborating to find and book a hotel. The dialogue's relevance is mostly strong, with each turn logically following the previous one. The agent asks clarifying questions (price, location, preferences), and the user provides answers and adds constraints (parking, wifi, guesthouse). The agent provides feedback on the search results (\"narrows it down to 8 options\") and eventually makes a recommendation.\n\nHowever, there are two points of logical inconsistency.\n1. At [00:26], the agent states there are 8 options matching the user's criteria (free parking, free wifi). After the user adds the preference for a \"guesthouse\", the agent confusingly states at [00:33] \"there are 21 of those\". This contradicts the previous filtering step.\n2. At the beginning [00:00], the user asks for a hotel for \"tonight\". However, near the end at [00:45], the agent asks what day to book for, having forgotten the initial request. The user then contradicts their own initial request by asking for \"Sunday\" at [00:48] and strangely apologizes for not mentioning the date before.\n\nDespite these logical errors, the conversation successfully reaches its goal. The participants move past the inconsistencies and complete the booking. The turn-by-turn relevance is consistently high, even if the overall dialogue coherence has flaws. Because the primary task is completed successfully and the conversation does not break down, the relevance is considered acceptable.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency of the dialogue is excellent.\n- **Pauses:** There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns. The gaps are all 1-2 seconds long, which is typical for a natural conversation and indicates smooth turn-taking. For example, the 2-second pause between [00:24] and [00:26] is a normal amount of time for the agent to process the new information.\n- **Overlaps:** There are no harmful extended overlaps. The only instance of speakers talking over each other is from [00:08] to [00:09], where the user begins their answer before the agent has fully finished their question. This is a very brief (1-second) and common type of interruption in natural speech and does not hinder communication. Other vocalizations like \"Right\" or \"Ummm\" are fillers spoken by the current speaker within their own turn, not overlaps with the other participant.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/121",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:14]] A: That's a really compelling expansion of Jane's military experience. Could you tell me more about how she handled the emotional challenges during her deployments and what specific skills she developed that helped her through those tough times?\n[[00:14],[00:21]] B: Jane learned to cope with the emotional strain by focusing on small victories. She kept a journal\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:20],[00:34]] A: I'm curious about how her relationships with family and friends changed after she enlisted. Did they eventually understand her choice, and how did those bonds evolve over time, especially when she struggled after returning home?\n[[00:35],[00:57]] B: At first, her parents were worried and disappointed, but they grew proud seeing her determination. Friends drifted apart at first, but the ones who mattered stayed. After deployments, Jane had to rebuild trust slowly, showing them she was still herself—just stronger and wiser from her experiences.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:45],[00:46]] B: Okay,okay.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance.\n1. **A's first question ([00:00]-[00:14]):** Asks about Jane's emotional challenges during deployment and the skills she developed.\n2. **B's first response ([00:14]-[00:21]):** Starts to answer directly, mentioning focusing on small victories and keeping a journal. This is highly relevant.\n3. **A's second question ([00:20]-[00:34]):** Interrupts B to ask a new, related question about how Jane's relationships with family and friends changed due to her enlistment. While an interruption, the topic is still coherent with the overall theme of Jane's military experience.\n4. **B's second response ([00:35]-[00:57]):** Directly and thoroughly answers A's second question, discussing her parents' and friends' reactions and the process of rebuilding relationships. This is perfectly relevant.\nThe conversation maintains logical consistency and topic coherence throughout. All responses are directly related to the questions asked.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, specifically looking for extended overlaps and long pauses.\n1. **Pauses:** There is a one-second pause between A's turn ending at [00:34] and B's turn beginning at [00:35]. This is a very natural, brief pause for turn-taking and not considered a flaw.\n2. **Overlaps:**\n * There is a one-second overlap from [00:20] to [00:21] where A begins speaking before B has finished their sentence. This is an interruption, but it is brief, and the conversation recovers smoothly.\n * The other instances of B speaking during their own turn ([00:18]-[00:19], [00:41]-[00:42], [00:43]-[00:44], [00:45]-[00:46]) are very short, backchannel-like utterances or fillers (\"Okay, okay\", \"Mm hmm\"). They do not disrupt the flow of B's own speech or overlap with the other speaker.\nThe interaction flows naturally without any harmful, extended overlaps or long, awkward silences.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/121",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Ameena, I just want to be alone right now.\n[[00:03],[00:04]] B: What?\n[[00:03],[00:07]] A: Sorry, I just need some time to myself.\n[[00:04],[00:05]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:07],[00:09]] B: But we were just hanging out, what's wrong?\n[[00:10],[00:14]] A: Ameena, please, I'm just not feeling up to socializing at the moment.\n[[00:11],[00:12]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:15],[00:18]] B: Wait, is it something I did? I just want to understand.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Really.\n[[00:18],[00:22]] A: No, it's not you. I'm just not in the mood right now.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:23],[00:26]] B: Fine, I'll go. But I don't understand what's wrong.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and coherence of the dialogue.\n1. **A's initial statement ([[00:00],[00:02]]):** \"Ameena, I just want to be alone right now.\" This clearly establishes the topic and A's desire.\n2. **B's response ([[00:03],[00:04]]):** \"What?\" This is a very natural and relevant response of surprise and confusion to A's sudden statement.\n3. **A's clarification ([[00:03],[00:07]]):** \"Sorry, I just need some time to myself.\" This is a direct and coherent follow-up, rephrasing the initial request.\n4. **B's follow-up question ([[00:07],[00:09]]):** \"But we were just hanging out, what's wrong?\" This is a logical question, seeking an explanation for the change in behavior, demonstrating topic coherence.\n5. **A's reply ([[00:10],[00:14]]):** \"Ameena, please, I'm just not feeling up to socializing at the moment.\" This directly addresses B's question (\"what's wrong?\") by explaining their emotional state. It's consistent and relevant.\n6. **B's next question ([[00:15],[00:18]]):** \"Wait, is it something I did? I just want to understand.\" This is a common and logical progression in such a conversation, where the person being pushed away worries they are the cause. It's highly relevant.\n7. **A's reassurance ([[00:18],[00:22]]):** \"No, it's not you. I'm just not in the mood right now.\" This directly answers B's question and reiterates their position, maintaining perfect logical consistency.\n8. **B's conclusion ([[00:23],[00:26]]):** \"Fine, I'll go. But I don't understand what's wrong.\" This is a coherent end to the exchange, where B agrees to leave but expresses lingering confusion, which is a realistic outcome.\n\nOverall, the dialogue is perfectly logical. Each turn is a relevant response to the previous one, and the conversation progresses coherently from start to finish.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to analyze the interactional fluency, focusing on pauses and overlaps.\n1. **Pauses:** The pauses between turns are consistently short (1 second or less), such as between [00:02] and [00:03], [00:09] and [00:10], and [00:14] and [00:15]. These short pauses are typical of natural conversation and do not indicate any awkwardness or disruption in flow. There are no prolonged, harmful pauses.\n2. **Overlaps:**\n * There is a brief overlap between A's utterance \"Sorry, I just need some time to myself\" ([[00:03],[00:07]]) and B's interjection \"What?\" ([[00:03],[00:04]]). This is a very natural type of overlap where one person expresses a quick reaction while the other is still speaking or clarifying. It is not disruptive and enhances the realism of the conversation.\n * The other overlaps noted in the transcript (e.g., \"Uh huh\", \"Ummm\", \"Really\") are filler words or self-interjections within a single speaker's turn. These do not disrupt the turn-taking flow between the two speakers.\n\nThe turn-taking is smooth, and the minor overlap is characteristic of a natural, engaged conversation rather than a flaw. The interactional fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/121",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hi. Can you help me find a restaurant?\n[[00:02],[00:07]] B: Yes, there are a lot of available restaurants. May I help you narrow down your choices?\n[[00:04],[00:05]] B: I see.\n[[00:07],[00:11]] A: I'm looking in particular for the Mahal of Cambridge.\n[[00:09],[00:10]] A: Really.\n[[00:11],[00:17]] B: Mahal of Cambridge is located at 3-5 Millers Yard Mill Lane. Would you like me to\n[[00:13],[00:13]] B: Mm.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Um.\n[[00:16],[00:20]] A: Sorry to interrupt, but do you know if they have any special dietary options?\n[[00:18],[00:19]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:21],[00:26]] B: Yes, they do offer vegetarian and vegan options. Would you like me to book a reservation for you?\n[[00:23],[00:24]] B: Really.\n[[00:27],[00:30]] A: Yes, please reserve a table for Thursday.\n[[00:28],[00:29]] A: Um.\n[[00:31],[00:35]] B: Sure, how many will be in your party and what time would you like to dine?\n[[00:33],[00:34]] B: Really.\n[[00:35],[00:40]] A: There will be 4 in my party and we would like to book for 13:15.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] A: Mm.\n[[00:40],[00:50]] B: Got it! Your table will be held for 15 minutes. Your reference number is: CJU3R6KZ. Is there anything else I can help you with?\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Um.\n[[00:50],[00:54]] A: Yes, I also need a train to Cambridge on the same day.\n[[00:54],[01:00]] B: Where will you be departing from and what time do you want to arrive and leave so I can find the best options for you?\n[[01:01],[01:05]] A: I'll be departing from Stansted Airport and need to arrive by 08:00.\n[[01:06],[01:10]] B: The TR6437 will fit your needs. How many tickets would you like?",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each turn logically follows the previous one. The conversation starts with a general request for a restaurant, which speaker B appropriately addresses by offering to narrow down the search. Speaker A then specifies the restaurant, and B provides the correct address. The dialogue seamlessly transitions from finding the restaurant to asking about dietary options, booking a table, and finally, booking a train. All responses are directly relevant to the questions asked, and the topics (restaurant booking, train booking) are handled coherently and in a logical sequence.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no prolonged pauses between turns; the conversation flows smoothly and quickly. There is one notable overlap from [00:16] to [00:17] where speaker A interrupts speaker B. However, this is handled naturally as A explicitly says, \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which makes it a realistic and non-disruptive part of the conversation rather than a fluency error. The other marked overlaps are actually self-overlaps (e.g., \"Um,\" \"Really\") which are common fillers in natural speech and do not disrupt the turn-taking between the two speakers. Overall, the interaction is fluid and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/122",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hey, boss. I wanted to talk to you about something.\n[[00:03],[00:03]] B: What's up?\n[[00:04],[00:11]] A: I've been thinking about this for a while, and I've decided that I'm going to quit my job and backpack around Europe for a\n[[00:07],[00:08]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:10],[00:15]] B: Whoa, hold on a second. You can't just up and leave like that! We need you here.\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: Cool.\n[[00:16],[00:27]] A: I know you need me, but I need to do this for myself. It's something I've always wanted to do, and now seems like the perfect time for me to take this break and fulfill this dream.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] A: Really.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] A: Uh.\n[[00:27],[00:33]] B: But what about your responsibilities here? We can't just let you go without someone to take your place.\n[[00:31],[00:31]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:34],[00:43]] A: I understand that, and I'm willing to train my replacement before I leave. Plus, I have some vacation time saved up, so I could start my trip a little early if needed.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:38],[00:39]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:44],[00:47]] B: I don't know...\n[[00:47],[00:53]] A: Look, I'm not asking for your permission. I'm just giving you a heads up. I'm resigning, effective immediately.\n[[00:49],[00:49]] A: Really.\n[[00:54],[00:59]] B: Fine. If that's what you want to do, then go ahead. But know that we're going to miss you around here.\n[[00:56],[00:57]] B: Hmm.\n[[01:00],[01:05]] A: I'll miss everyone too. But this is something I have to do. Thanks for understanding.\n[[01:01],[01:02]] A: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A introduces a topic (quitting their job), and Speaker B responds with a natural and relevant reaction of surprise and concern for the business. The conversation progresses logically: A justifies their decision, B raises practical concerns about responsibilities, A offers a solution (training a replacement), and the dialogue concludes with B's reluctant acceptance. Each speaker's turn is a direct and coherent response to the previous one, creating a clear and easy-to-follow narrative. The small interjections like \"Really\" or \"Uh huh\" are treated as conversational fillers that do not break the logical flow of the main arguments.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long or awkward pauses between turns; the conversation flows at a natural and engaging pace. The turn-taking is smooth and immediate. There are several instances of overlap, but they are all very brief and do not disrupt the conversation. The one instance of a speaker interrupting another ([00:10]-[00:11]) is natural and contextually appropriate. All other overlaps are minor self-corrections or fillers (e.g., A saying \"Really\" during their own turn), which are common in natural speech and do not harm the fluency of the interaction.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/122",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:16]] A: Could you help me plan an easy-to-use online store with great features? I want good search options, simple navigation, quick checkout, personal recommendations, and easy customer support. Also, how can I get more visitors and keep them engaged on my site?\n[[00:17],[00:24]] B: I can definitely help with that. For your e-commerce site, focus on clear product categories\n[[00:21],[00:21]] B: Mm.\n[[00:24],[00:37]] A: That sounds good, but could you tell me more about using social media to grow my online business? What are the best ways to build my presence and reach more potential customers through platforms like Facebook and Instagram?\n[[00:38],[01:04]] B: For social media, first pick platforms where your customers spend time. Facebook and Instagram work well for most stores. Post eye-catching product photos and videos regularly. Use relevant hashtags so new people can find you. Run contests and share customer photos to get more engagement. Consider working with influencers who can show your products to their followers.\n[[00:46],[00:47]] B: Uh.\n[[00:48],[00:49]] B: Right.\n[[00:49],[00:51]] B: Um.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B's initial response at [[00:17],[00:24]] directly addresses Speaker A's request for help planning an e-commerce site by starting with a fundamental aspect, \"clear product categories.\" When Speaker A pivots the conversation at [[00:24],[00:37]] to focus specifically on social media, Speaker B provides a detailed, relevant, and actionable answer at [[00:38],[01:04]]. This response is perfectly aligned with A's question, offering specific strategies for platforms like Facebook and Instagram. The conversation maintains a logical and coherent flow throughout.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the gaps are natural (e.g., one second at [00:16]-[00:17] and [00:37]-[00:38]). There are no extended or disruptive overlaps. The brief vocalizations from Speaker B, such as \"Mm\" and \"Uh,\" function as natural filler words within their own speaking turn and do not interrupt the flow of the conversation. The turn-taking is smooth and resembles a natural, fluent dialogue.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/123",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:12]] A: That's great to hear the Domesday Book is available online, but could you tell me more about how exactly it demonstrates the feudal system in action? I'm curious about specific examples from the records.\n[[00:12],[00:22]] B: Absolutely! The Domesday Book shows lords controlling vast lands while peasants worked them. For example, it lists how much land each knight held\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:17],[00:17]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:21],[00:32]] A: That makes sense, but how did the Domesday Book actually help William enforce this new feudal system across England? Was it just for record-keeping or did it serve other purposes too?\n[[00:33],[00:42]] B: It was much more than just records. William used it to track who owed him taxes and military service. The detailed surveys\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: Cool.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:42],[00:51]] A: Interesting! Since you mentioned taxes, could you explain how the Domesday Book changed the way taxes were collected compared to before the Norman Conquest?\n[[00:51],[01:03]] B: Before 1066, taxes were more informal. The Domesday Book introduced systematic records of wealth and land values. This let Normans\n[[00:57],[00:59]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[01:02],[01:13]] A: That sounds incredibly detailed for its time! Do we know how long it took to compile all this information and how many people were involved in creating the Domesday Book?\n[[01:13],[01:24]] B: It was a massive project! Teams of surveyors traveled across England for about a year. They interviewed local officials and landowners in each\n[[01:16],[01:17]] B: Right.\n[[01:18],[01:19]] B: Uh.\n[[01:23],[01:33]] A: Since the survey was so thorough, does the Domesday Book give us any insights into daily life for ordinary people during this period, not just the feudal system?\n[[01:34],[01:52]] B: Yes indeed! Beyond lords and taxes, it mentions mills, fisheries, and even beehives. These details show what common people owned and how they lived. You can find records of village populations and local industries too. It's a goldmine for social historians!\n[[01:39],[01:40]] B: Ummm.\n[[01:41],[01:42]] B: Right.\n[[01:43],[01:44]] B: Mm hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance. I will analyze the conversation turn by turn to check for logical consistency and topic coherence.\n\n1. **A's first question [[00:00],[00:12]]** asks for specific examples of how the Domesday Book demonstrates the feudal system.\n2. **B's first response [[00:12],[00:22]]** directly answers this by explaining it shows lords controlling land and peasants working it, providing the example of listing how much land each knight held. This is a relevant and coherent response.\n3. **A's second question [[00:21],[00:32]]** builds on the previous exchange, asking about the book's role in *enforcing* the feudal system beyond just record-keeping.\n4. **B's second response [[00:33],[00:42]]** addresses this perfectly by explaining its use for tracking taxes and military service, which are key enforcement mechanisms.\n5. **A's third question [[00:42],[00:51]]** picks up on B's mention of \"taxes\" and asks for a comparison of tax collection before and after the Norman Conquest. This is a logical follow-up.\n6. **B's third response [[00:51],[01:03]]** provides a clear contrast between the informal pre-conquest system and the new systematic records, directly answering the question.\n7. **A's fourth question [[01:02],[01:13]]** shifts slightly to the creation of the book, asking about the time and people involved. This is a natural point of curiosity in a detailed discussion.\n8. **B's fourth response [[01:13],[01:24]]** answers this directly, describing the massive project involving teams of surveyors over a year.\n9. **A's final question [[01:23],[01:33]]** broadens the scope to ask about insights into the daily life of ordinary people.\n10. **B's final response [[01:34],[01:52]]** confirms this and provides specific examples like mills, fisheries, and beehives, showing a deep understanding of the topic.\n\nOverall, the conversation flows logically. Each response from B is directly relevant to A's question, and A's questions build coherently on B's previous answers. The topic is explored in a structured and consistent manner.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, focusing on disruptive overlaps and long pauses.\n\n* **Pauses:** I will check the time gaps between the end of one speaker's turn and the start of the next.\n * A ends at [00:12], B starts at [00:12]. No pause.\n * B ends at [00:22], A starts at [00:21]. A brief, natural overlap.\n * A ends at [00:32], B starts at [00:33]. A 1-second pause, which is perfectly normal.\n * B ends at [00:42], A starts at [00:42]. No pause.\n * A ends at [00:51], B starts at [00:51]. No pause.\n * B ends at [01:03], A starts at [01:02]. Another brief, natural overlap.\n * A ends at [01:13], B starts at [01:13]. No pause.\n * B ends at [01:24], A starts at [01:23]. Another brief, natural overlap.\n * A ends at [01:33], B starts at [01:34]. A 1-second pause, which is normal.\n There are no prolonged or awkward pauses. The turn-taking is swift and natural.\n\n* **Overlaps:** I will examine all instances of overlapping speech.\n * The dialogue contains numerous short overlaps from speaker B (e.g., \"That's cool,\" \"Mhm,\" \"Right,\" \"Ummm\").\n * However, every single one of these is speaker B overlapping with their own main utterance. These are self-backchannels or fillers and do not interrupt speaker A.\n * The few instances where A starts slightly before B finishes are very brief (1 second) and are typical of an engaged, natural conversation, not disruptive interruptions.\n * There are no extended overlaps where speakers talk over each other, causing confusion.\n\nThe interaction is very fluid. Turn-taking is smooth, and there are no harmful pauses or overlaps that disrupt the conversational flow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/123",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: Hey, baby. Come here and check out what I'm wearing.\n[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Mm.\n[[00:03],[00:06]] B: Wow, you look hot! I love that lingerie.\n[[00:06],[00:11]] A: I know you do. You always get so turned on when you see me\n[[00:08],[00:09]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:10],[00:13]] B: Sorry to jump in, but where did you get it? I've never seen this one before.\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: Sure.\n[[00:14],[00:25]] A: I got it from that new boutique downtown. I wanted to make sure you were extra horny for me tonight. I know you can't resist when I surprise you with something new and sexy.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:25],[00:31]] B: Absolutely not, especially in that outfit. But do you think we should maybe try something new tonight?\n[[00:28],[00:29]] B: Sure.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue for response relevance and interactional fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\nThe dialogue maintains a consistent and logical flow.\n- Speaker A initiates a flirty conversation by asking Speaker B to look at their lingerie.\n- Speaker B responds appropriately with a compliment (\"Wow, you look hot!\").\n- Speaker A continues the flirty tone, and Speaker B follows up with a relevant question about where the lingerie was purchased.\n- Speaker A answers the question and elaborates on their intention, staying perfectly in character and on topic.\n- Speaker B's final turn directly responds to A's statement (\"Absolutely not\" meaning \"I absolutely cannot resist\") and moves the conversation forward logically (\"...try something new tonight?\").\n- The conversation is coherent and the turns are thematically connected. The small interjections like \"Mm\" and \"Uh huh\" are typical filler sounds. While \"That's cool\" and \"Sure\" seem slightly misplaced within a speaker's own turn, they don't break the overall relevance of the interaction between the two speakers. The core responses are highly relevant to each other.\n\n**Conclusion:** The responses are relevant, logically consistent, and maintain topic coherence throughout the interaction.\n\n\n\n**Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\nI will analyze the dialogue for pauses and overlaps.\n- **Pauses:** There are no long or awkward pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are quick and seamless (e.g., B responds at [00:03] immediately after A finishes at [00:03]), which contributes to a natural conversational pace.\n- **Overlaps:** There are several instances of overlapping speech.\n - `[00:10]-[00:11]`: Speaker B begins talking just before Speaker A finishes. This is a 1-second overlap, which is very common in natural, enthusiastic conversation and is not disruptive.\n - The other overlaps are very short, 1-second interjections within a speaker's own turn (e.g., A saying \"That's cool\" at `[00:08]` while in the middle of another sentence). While slightly unusual, they are extremely brief and do not constitute the kind of harmful, extended overlap that disrupts communication. The prompt states that \"brief overlaps... are acceptable\". Given their brevity, they do not significantly harm the overall fluency.\n\n**Conclusion:** The interaction does not suffer from long pauses or extended, disruptive overlaps. The flow is fast-paced and generally smooth, consistent with an excellent fluency rating.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/124",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Hey, how's it going?\n[[00:01],[00:05]] B: Oh, not too bad. Just getting through the\n[[00:03],[00:04]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:04],[00:12]] A: Sorry to jump in, but when you say \"getting through the day,\" is something bothering you, or is it just one of those days?\n[[00:07],[00:08]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:13],[00:17]] B: Just one of those days, nothing major. So what've you been up to lately?\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Mm.\n[[00:18],[00:24]] A: Just hanging out with friends and family, mostly. You know how weekends can be-trying to balance everything.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:24],[00:30]] B: Speaking of family, how's your sister doing? Last time we talked, you mentioned she was going through a tough time.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] B: Um.\n[[00:31],[00:40]] A: She's doing better now, thanks for asking. We've been spending more time together, which helps. But yeah, as I was saying, it's been good to stay connected with everyone.\n[[00:33],[00:34]] A: Cool.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] A: Uh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance and topic coherence. Speaker A initiates a standard greeting, and B gives a standard reply but with a hint that things aren't perfect (\"Just getting through the day\"). A picks up on this cue and asks a relevant, empathetic follow-up question. B answers and then smoothly pivots the conversation by asking A a question. The most impressive instance of coherence is when B hears A mention \"family\" and uses that as a springboard to ask a specific, thoughtful question about A's sister, recalling a detail from a previous conversation. This shows active listening and a high degree of conversational relevance. All subsequent responses are logical and build upon what was just said.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the turn-taking flows at a natural pace. There is one instance of a speaker interrupting another ([00:04] A interrupts B), but it is brief, acknowledged politely (\"Sorry to jump in\"), and serves to seek clarification, which is a natural conversational move. The other listed overlaps (e.g., [00:07] A: \"Okay,okay\" during their own turn) appear to be transcription artifacts where fillers or brief affirmations are noted within a speaker's main utterance, rather than two speakers talking over each other for an extended period. These do not disrupt the flow of the conversation and are not harmful overlaps. Overall, the interaction is smooth and fluent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/124",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: Could you explain more about the accident details? I'd like to know about other serious injuries besides the fatality, especially how the other people involved are doing right now.\n[[00:11],[00:17]] B: Sure, I can tell you what we know. The driver of the Ford Anglia is\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Mm.\n[[00:15],[00:24]] A: Wait, before you continue, could you tell me more about the vehicles involved in this accident? What types of cars were there and where exactly did this happen?\n[[00:25],[00:34]] B: Of course, let me share that first. The crash involved four vehicles on the M1 near Kirby Muxloe. There was a big Scania\n[[00:28],[00:28]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: I see.\n[[00:34],[00:44]] A: Going back to the injuries you mentioned earlier, could you clarify if there were any other passengers in those vehicles who got hurt? And how serious were their injuries compared to the fatality?\n[[00:44],[00:59]] B: Yes, besides the fatality in the Ford Anglia, three others were injured. The truck driver had minor injuries while the Mazda driver broke an arm. The Ford Ka passenger had the most serious non-fatal injuries but was released from hospital.\n[[00:49],[00:49]] B: I see.\n[[00:50],[00:51]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:52],[00:53]] B: Mm hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and coherence of the dialogue.\n\n1. **A's first turn ([00:00]-[00:10])**: A clearly asks for details about other injuries in an accident.\n2. **B's first turn ([00:11]-[00:17])**: B begins to answer the question directly, starting with the driver of the Ford Anglia. This is a relevant start.\n3. **A's second turn ([00:15]-[00:24])**: A interrupts to ask for background information first (vehicles, location). This is a logical clarification request to establish context before getting into the details of the injuries. The topic shift is managed well.\n4. **B's second turn ([00:25]-[00:34])**: B appropriately pivots to answer A's new question, providing the requested context about the vehicles and location. The response is directly relevant to A's interruption.\n5. **A's third turn ([00:34]-[00:44])**: A skillfully brings the conversation back to the original topic (\"Going back to the injuries...\"). This shows excellent topic coherence and management.\n6. **B's third turn ([00:44]-[00:59])**: B provides a comprehensive and detailed answer to A's original question, covering all the points A asked about.\n\nOverall, the dialogue is highly coherent and logically structured. The speakers navigate a topic shift and return smoothly. All responses are directly relevant to the questions being asked.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, focusing on pauses and overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses**: There are no long, awkward pauses between turns. The gap between A's first question and B's response ([00:10]-[00:11]) is a natural 1-second pause for turn-taking. The same is true for the pause between A's second question and B's response ([00:24]-[00:25]). The interaction flows smoothly without unnatural delays.\n2. **Overlaps**:\n * **[00:15]-[00:17]**: There is a significant overlap where A interrupts B. However, this is a functional interruption (\"Wait, before you continue...\"). A is deliberately taking the floor to redirect the conversation for clarity. In this context, it's a natural and effective conversational move, not a disruptive error.\n * **Other overlaps**: The transcript shows multiple instances of B saying \"Mm,\" \"Hmm,\" \"I see,\" etc. These are very brief and function as backchannels, indicating active listening or acknowledgement. They do not disrupt the flow of the conversation.\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth, there are no detrimental pauses, and the main overlap is a purposeful and natural part of the dialogue's progression.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/125",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:08]] A: Could you break down the steps for making gluten-free cheese sauce in simpler terms? I want to make sure I understand each part clearly before trying it.\n[[00:09],[00:23]] B: First, pour milk into a jug. Then mix cornflour with some milk to make a paste. Heat the rest of the milk until nearly boiling. Add the paste to the hot milk and stir\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Right.\n[[00:22],[00:31]] A: What are some tasty gluten-free dishes I could pair with this cheese sauce besides pasta? I’m looking for more meal ideas that would work well with it.\n[[00:32],[00:49]] B: This sauce goes great with roasted veggies like broccoli or cauliflower. You could also drizzle it over baked potatoes or use it as a dip for gluten-free crackers. It’s even delicious with grilled chicken or as a topping for nachos.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] B: Really.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] B: Mm hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and coherence of the dialogue.\n\n1. **A's first turn to B's first turn:** Speaker A asks for simple steps to make a gluten-free cheese sauce. Speaker B provides a clear, step-by-step recipe. The response is directly relevant and perfectly answers the question.\n2. **A's second turn to B's second turn:** Speaker A asks for meal ideas to pair with the sauce. This is a logical follow-up question. Speaker B provides several appropriate and relevant suggestions (roasted veggies, baked potatoes, dip, etc.). The response is highly relevant and helpful.\n\nThe conversation is coherent, with each turn logically following the previous one. There are no inconsistencies or off-topic remarks.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:** There is a 1-second pause between A's first turn ending at [00:08] and B's response beginning at [00:09]. There is another 1-second pause between A's second turn ending at [00:31] and B's response beginning at [00:32]. These are natural, brief pauses and do not disrupt the flow of the conversation.\n2. **Overlaps:** There is a very brief, 1-second overlap where A begins speaking at [00:22] while B is finishing their turn at [00:23]. This is a minor overlap, typical of natural conversation, and is not disruptive. The other interjections ([[00:13],[00:14]], [[00:15],[00:16]], etc.) are all attributed to speaker B during their own turn, so they are not overlaps between different speakers.\n\nThe turn-taking is smooth, with no harmful pauses or extended overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/125",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: Australia won the most gold medals in 2010 with seventy-four, but I'm wondering which country came in second place and how close they were to Australia's total?\n[[00:11],[00:20]] B: India came closest with thirty-eight golds, but that's less than half of Australia's count. England followed with thirty-seven,\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Right.\n[[00:19],[00:27]] A: That's an impressive lead Australia had over everyone else! Could you tell me more about why Australia performs so well in sports compared to other nations?\n[[00:28],[00:36]] B: Australia invests a lot in sports programs and athlete development. They have world-class training facilities\n[[00:30],[00:31]] B: Mm.\n[[00:32],[00:33]] B: Uh.\n[[00:35],[00:43]] A: That makes sense, but are there any other factors like government funding or cultural attitudes toward sports that contribute to their success?\n[[00:43],[00:54]] B: Absolutely! The government provides strong financial support, and sports are deeply valued in Australian culture. Many kids grow up\n[[00:46],[00:47]] B: Really.\n[[00:48],[00:49]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:52],[01:01]] A: Interesting! Since swimming seems to be a big strength for them, do you know how many of their seventy-four golds came from swimming events in 2010?\n[[01:01],[01:10]] B: Swimming alone contributed about twenty gold medals that year. Australia has a long history of swimming\n[[01:04],[01:05]] B: Cool.\n[[01:06],[01:07]] B: Really.\n[[01:09],[01:19]] A: Wow, that's a huge portion of their total! Besides swimming, which other sports helped Australia secure so many gold medals in 2010?\n[[01:20],[01:30]] B: Track and field added several golds, plus cycling, rowing, and hockey. They also performed well in team sports and individual events across the board, showing their versatility.\n[[01:23],[01:23]] B: Really.\n[[01:25],[01:25]] B: Uh huh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and logical consistency of the dialogue.\n\n1. **A's first turn to B's first turn:** A asks who came in second place to Australia in the 2010 Commonwealth Games and the medal count. B directly answers that it was India with 38 golds and adds the context of third place. This is a perfectly relevant and helpful response.\n2. **B's first turn to A's second turn:** A comments on the large lead and then asks a follow-up question about the reasons for Australia's sporting success. This is a logical and coherent topic shift, building on the initial information.\n3. **A's second turn to B's second turn:** B explains that Australia invests in sports programs and facilities. This is a direct answer to A's question.\n4. **B's second turn to A's third turn:** A acknowledges the answer and probes for more specific factors like funding and culture. This is a logical continuation, seeking deeper understanding.\n5. **A's third turn to B's third turn:** B confirms and elaborates on government support and cultural attitudes. This is a relevant and direct response.\n6. **B's third turn to A's fourth turn:** A pivots to a specific sport, swimming, and asks how many golds came from that discipline. This is a coherent and relevant question within the broader topic.\n7. **A's fourth turn to B's fourth turn:** B provides the specific number (20) for swimming. This is a direct and relevant answer.\n8. **B's fourth turn to A's fifth turn:** A reacts to the number and asks about other sports that contributed. This is a logical follow-up question.\n9. **A's fifth turn to B's fifth turn:** B lists other successful sports for Australia. This is a relevant and direct answer to the question.\n\nOverall, the dialogue is exceptionally coherent. Each response is directly relevant to the preceding turn, and the conversation flows logically from a specific statistic to the reasons behind it, and then to a more detailed breakdown.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n* **Pauses between turns:**\n * [00:10] -> [00:11]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n * [00:20] -> [00:19]: This is a 1-second overlap where A starts speaking just before B finishes. This is very common in natural conversation and not a flaw.\n * [00:27] -> [00:28]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n * [00:36] -> [00:35]: Another 1-second overlap. Natural.\n * [00:43] -> [00:43]: No pause, a smooth transition. Excellent.\n * [00:54] -> [00:52]: A 2-second overlap. Still within the bounds of natural conversation, showing engagement.\n * [01:01] -> [01:01]: No pause, smooth transition. Excellent.\n * [01:10] -> [01:09]: A 1-second overlap. Natural.\n * [01:19] -> [01:20]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n\nThere are no long or awkward pauses between the speakers. The turn-taking is very smooth and fluid.\n\n* **Overlaps:**\n * The overlaps between speaker A and speaker B are brief (1-2 seconds) and typical of natural, engaged conversation where one speaker begins slightly before the other has finished. These are not harmful interruptions.\n * There are numerous instances of speaker B overlapping with their own speech (e.g., [[00:11],[00:20]] B and [[00:13],[00:14]] B). These are short, non-disruptive backchannels or fillers. While unusual to see them transcribed this way, they do not interrupt the flow of conversation between A and B.\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent, characterized by smooth turn-taking and the absence of any harmful pauses or disruptive overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/125",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:06]] A: I want to live a life that is meaningful and fulfilling, one where I can help others and make a difference in the world.\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:07],[00:08]] B: What made you decide that?\n[[00:09],[00:18]] A: I guess I just realized that I don't want to spend my life chasing things that don't matter. I want to do something with my life that has\n[[00:11],[00:12]] A: Um.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] A: Mm.\n[[00:17],[00:22]] B: Sorry to interrupt, but what do you mean by \"things that don't matter\"? Can you give an example?\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:23],[00:36]] A: Sure, like focusing solely on making money or gaining status without any real purpose. But I haven't mentioned that I believe helping others and making a difference in the world will give my life purpose and align with my personal values.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] A: Cool.\n[[00:37],[00:46]] B: That's a noble thought, but have you thought about which specific problems you want to tackle first? The scope can be overwhelming.\n[[00:40],[00:41]] B: Mm.\n[[00:42],[00:43]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:47],[01:03]] A: Yes, I do. There are so many problems in the world, and I feel like I could really make a difference if I devoted my time and energy to helping solve them. But it's also a lot of pressure to put on myself. Are you sure you're up for it?\n[[00:52],[00:54]] A: Um.\n[[00:55],[00:56]] A: Cool.\n[[00:57],[00:58]] A: Really.\n[[01:05],[01:13]] B: I'm not sure, but I'm willing to try. I would rather attempt to do something great and fail than to spend my life doing nothing of consequence.\n[[01:14],[01:21]] A: Well, I think you're amazing and brave, no matter what you decide to do. I'll support you whatever you choose.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance and logical consistency. The conversation starts with speaker A expressing a personal life goal. Speaker B's questions are relevant and serve to probe deeper into A's motivations and a \"noble thought.\" The conversation evolves naturally from a discussion about A's personal goals to a broader, shared philosophical exploration. When A asks, \"Are you sure you're up for it?\" at [00:47], it can be interpreted as a way to include B in the conversation, shifting the topic from A's specific plan to a shared consideration of the commitment such a goal requires. B's response and A's subsequent encouragement are logically consistent with this interpretation of a collaborative dialogue. The topic remains coherent throughout, simply broadening in scope.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth and natural. There are no prolonged pauses between turns; the longest pause is only two seconds, which is acceptable and can indicate thoughtful consideration. There is one minor overlap at [00:17], but speaker B immediately mitigates it by saying, \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which is a natural and polite conversational strategy used for clarification. The presence of backchannels and fillers like \"Uh huh,\" \"Um,\" and \"Mm\" contributes to the natural rhythm of the conversation rather than disrupting it. Overall, the flow is smooth and conversational.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/125",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:15]] A: What were the most important events during the Scientific Revolution that still affect science today? I'm particularly interested in understanding how these historical breakthroughs continue to influence modern scientific methods and technologies.\n[[00:15],[00:22]] B: Absolutely! Galileo's work with telescopes changed astronomy forever by proving Earth\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:21],[00:30]] A: Wait, before we get to Newton, could you tell me more about Galileo's impact? How exactly did his discoveries pave the way for modern astronomy and space exploration?\n[[00:31],[00:37]] B: Great question! Galileo's observations proved the sun was the center of our\n[[00:33],[00:34]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:36],[00:45]] A: That makes me wonder, how did scientists react at the time? Was there immediate acceptance of these revolutionary ideas, or did it take years for people to believe him?\n[[00:46],[00:53]] B: Actually, it caused huge controversy! The Church initially rejected his findings\n[[00:48],[00:50]] B: Uh.\n[[00:52],[01:02]] A: Speaking of time, how long did it take before Galileo's theories became widely accepted? And what finally convinced the scientific community they were correct?\n[[01:02],[01:08]] B: It took decades! Later astronomers like Kepler provided more evidence supporting\n[[01:04],[01:05]] B: Um.\n[[01:06],[01:06]] B: Uh huh.\n[[01:07],[01:18]] A: That's fascinating! Now going back to Newton, you mentioned his laws of motion earlier. Could you explain how these principles are applied in today's engineering projects and space missions?\n[[01:18],[01:23]] B: Sure thing! Newton's laws help engineers calculate everything\n[[01:21],[01:21]] B: Sure.\n[[01:22],[01:30]] A: Wait, could you give me a specific example? Like how do space agencies use Newton's gravity theory when planning missions to Mars or other planets?\n[[01:30],[01:36]] B: Excellent question! NASA uses Newton's gravity equations to plot\n[[01:34],[01:34]] B: I see.\n[[01:35],[01:43]] A: That's amazing! So without Newton's work from centuries ago, we wouldn't be able to send probes to explore our solar system today?\n[[01:44],[01:49]] B: Exactly right! Modern space exploration literally stands on the shoulders\n[[01:46],[01:47]] B: Cool.\n[[01:48],[01:57]] A: This makes me think—are there any recent scientific breakthroughs that might become as foundational as Galileo and Newton's work in another few centuries?\n[[01:58],[02:04]] B: Quantum computing and AI could be those future breakthroughs!\n[[02:01],[02:01]] B: Mm.\n[[02:03],[02:12]] A: That's a great point! Could you compare how scientific progress happens now versus during the Scientific Revolution? Is it faster today with modern technology?\n[[02:13],[02:19]] B: Oh definitely! Back then discoveries took decades to spread. Now with\n[[02:18],[02:26]] A: That makes me wonder—what do you think Galileo and Newton would say if they could see how their work is used in modern science today?\n[[02:26],[02:35]] B: They'd probably be amazed! Especially seeing their theories applied in technologies they couldn't even\n[[02:34],[02:43]] A: This has been so informative! One last question—where would you recommend I learn more about these connections between historical science and modern technology?\n[[02:44],[02:56]] B: I'd suggest starting with science history museums or documentaries. Many universities also offer free online courses about the Scientific Revolution's lasting impact!",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for Response Relevance. I will analyze the conversation turn by turn.\n- Speaker A starts with a broad question about the Scientific Revolution's impact on modern science.\n- Speaker B begins to answer, starting with Galileo.\n- Speaker A interrupts to narrow the focus specifically to Galileo's impact on astronomy. This is a relevant and logical follow-up.\n- Speaker B answers the specific question about Galileo's impact (heliocentric model).\n- Speaker A then asks a relevant question about the contemporary reaction to Galileo's ideas.\n- Speaker B provides a direct and relevant answer about the controversy with the Church.\n- Speaker A follows up with another relevant question about the timeline for acceptance.\n- Speaker B gives a relevant answer, mentioning it took decades and other astronomers provided more evidence.\n- Speaker A then logically transitions back to an earlier part of the conversation, asking about Newton. This shows topic coherence.\n- Speaker B starts to answer about Newton's laws.\n- Speaker A interrupts again, asking for a specific, relevant example related to space missions.\n- Speaker B provides an excellent, specific example about NASA using gravity equations.\n- Speaker A makes a logical conclusion and asks for confirmation, which is a relevant way to continue the conversation.\n- Speaker B confirms this.\n- Speaker A broadens the topic to modern breakthroughs, which is a logical extension of the theme.\n- Speaker B provides a relevant suggestion (Quantum computing, AI).\n- Speaker A asks a relevant comparative question about the speed of scientific progress.\n- Speaker B gives a direct and relevant answer.\n- Speaker A asks a creative, hypothetical question about what Galileo and Newton would think. This is still on-topic and engaging.\n- Speaker B gives a plausible and relevant answer.\n- Speaker A concludes by asking for resources to learn more, a logical end to an informative conversation.\n- Speaker B provides relevant and helpful suggestions.\n\nOverall, the dialogue is highly coherent and logically consistent. Each turn is directly relevant to the previous one, and the topic evolves naturally based on Speaker A's interests. There are no relevance issues.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate Interactional Fluency, focusing on extended overlaps and long pauses. I will examine the timestamps.\n\n**Pauses:**\n- The transitions between speakers are very quick. For example, B starts at [00:31] just one second after A finishes at [00:30]. B starts at [00:46] one second after A finishes at [00:45]. This pattern continues throughout the dialogue ([01:44] after [01:43], [01:58] after [01:57], etc.).\n- In many cases, there is no pause at all because Speaker A interrupts Speaker B.\n- There are no instances of long, awkward silences between turns. The pace is fast and engaged.\n\n**Overlaps:**\n- The transcript shows numerous overlaps, but they are all very brief.\n- Example 1: B speaks from [00:21] to [00:22] while A starts speaking at [00:21]. This is a 1-second overlap.\n- Example 2: A speaks from [00:36] to [00:37] while B is finishing their turn. This is another 1-second overlap.\n- This pattern of short, 1-second overlaps where A starts speaking just before B finishes is consistent throughout the entire dialogue.\n- These brief overlaps are not disruptive. Instead, they indicate Speaker A's high level of engagement and eagerness to ask the next question. They function as natural interruptions in an enthusiastic conversation, not as rude or confusing cross-talk.\n- The transcript also lists self-interruptions or fillers for Speaker B (e.g., [[00:17],[00:18]] B: Uh huh. during B's main turn). These are not inter-speaker overlaps and do not harm fluency.\n\nConclusion: The interaction is extremely fluent. The turn-taking is rapid, with no long pauses. The overlaps are consistently brief and function as a natural feature of an engaged, fast-paced conversation rather than a flaw.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/126",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Hey, are you okay?\n[[00:01],[00:04]] B: Yeah, I'm fine. Just a little\n[[00:03],[00:09]] A: Sorry to jump in, but is it something specific that's making you tired? Like work or something else?\n[[00:05],[00:06]] A: Uh.\n[[00:10],[00:14]] B: Mostly work, it's been really hectic lately. Do you need help with anything?\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:15],[00:21]] A: Actually, I was going to ask if you needed help first. If it's work-related, maybe I can assist you with some tasks.\n[[00:17],[00:19]] A: Cool.\n[[00:22],[00:27]] B: No, I don't think so. I just need to rest for a bit and clear my head.\n[[00:24],[00:25]] B: Really.\n[[00:27],[00:33]] A: But what about the deadlines? Are you sure taking a break won't affect them?\n[[00:31],[00:31]] A: Really.\n[[00:34],[00:41]] B: I'll manage the deadlines. I just need a short break to recharge. Okay, well let me know if you need anything.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:38],[00:39]] B: Mm hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance.\n\n1. **A: \"Hey, are you okay?\"** - This is a standard opening and check-in.\n2. **B: \"Yeah, I'm fine. Just a little...\"** - This is a direct and relevant answer to A's question.\n3. **A: \"Sorry to jump in, but is it something specific that's making you tired? Like work or something else?\"** - Speaker A correctly infers that B was going to say \"tired\" and asks a relevant follow-up question to understand the cause. This shows active listening and maintains topic coherence.\n4. **B: \"Mostly work, it's been really hectic lately. Do you need help with anything?\"** - B answers A's question directly (\"Mostly work\") and then makes a relevant conversational turn by offering help.\n5. **A: \"Actually, I was going to ask if you needed help first. If it's work-related, maybe I can assist you with some tasks.\"** - This response is perfectly relevant. A clarifies their own intention and makes an offer directly related to B's stated problem (work).\n6. **B: \"No, I don't think so. I just need to rest for a bit and clear my head.\"** - B responds directly to A's offer, politely declining and providing a logical reason.\n7. **A: \"But what about the deadlines? Are you sure taking a break won't affect them?\"** - A shows continued engagement and concern by asking a logical follow-up question about the consequences of B's plan.\n8. **B: \"I'll manage the deadlines. I just need a short break to recharge. Okay, well let me know if you need anything.\"** - B provides reassurance and reiterates their needs, maintaining the conversational topic.\n\nOverall, the dialogue is highly coherent and logically consistent. Each turn is a relevant response to the previous one, and the speakers build upon each other's contributions effectively.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, focusing on pauses and overlaps.\n\n**Pauses:**\n- I will check the timestamps for any long gaps between turns.\n- [[00:01]] A -> [[00:01]] B: No pause.\n- [[00:04]] B -> [[00:03]] A: This is an overlap, not a pause.\n- [[00:14]] B -> [[00:15]] A: A 1-second pause. This is a natural and acceptable pause in conversation.\n- [[00:21]] A -> [[00:22]] B: A 1-second pause. Also natural.\n- [[00:27]] B -> [[00:27]] A: No pause.\n- [[00:33]] A -> [[00:34]] B: A 1-second pause. Natural.\n- **Conclusion on pauses:** There are no prolonged or awkward pauses. The turn-taking pace is smooth and natural.\n\n**Overlaps:**\n- **[[00:01],[00:04]] B: Yeah, I'm fine. Just a little**\n- **[[00:03],[00:09]] A: Sorry to jump in...**\n- There is a clear overlap/interruption from [00:03] to [00:04]. However, speaker A immediately acknowledges it with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which is a very natural way to handle an interruption in a real conversation. This makes the overlap feel intentional and polite rather than disruptive.\n- The other listed overlaps (e.g., [[00:11],[00:12]] B: Uh huh, [[00:17],[00:19]] A: Cool) are backchannels or fillers that the speaker says during their own turn. They do not overlap with the other speaker's turn and are not harmful to the interaction.\n- **Conclusion on overlaps:** The main overlap is handled skillfully and realistically, contributing to the natural feel of the dialogue. There are no other harmful overlaps.\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent, characterized by a natural pace and realistic, well-managed interruptions.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/126",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:12]] A: That's really interesting! Could you tell me more about how the crew members managed to get fresh food and water during those long voyages at sea? I imagine it must have been quite challenging to keep supplies from spoiling.\n[[00:14],[00:24]] B: Getting fresh food and water was definitely a big challenge. Ships carried barrels of fresh water, but it often went bad over time.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:24],[00:35]] A: Speaking of health issues, what were some of the most common medical problems sailors faced, and how did they treat them without proper doctors or medicine back then?\n[[00:36],[01:14]] B: Sailors faced many serious health problems. Scurvy was the worst—it caused bleeding gums and weakness from lack of vitamins. Other common issues were dysentery from bad water, infections from injuries, and fevers like yellow fever. \n\nTreatments were basic and often harsh. For scurvy, they eventually used lemon juice. Wounds were cleaned with vinegar or alcohol. Amputations were done for severe injuries, and opium helped with pain. But without real doctors, many sailors didn’t survive serious illnesses.\n[[00:47],[00:48]] B: Sure.\n[[00:49],[00:51]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:52],[00:52]] B: Sure.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue for response relevance and interactional fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n1. Speaker A asks about getting fresh food and water on long sea voyages [[00:00],[00:12]].\n2. Speaker B responds directly to this question, confirming it was a challenge and mentioning how water would spoil [[00:14],[00:24]]. This is a relevant and coherent answer.\n3. Speaker A then pivots to a related topic: common medical problems that sailors faced, which is a logical extension from the topic of bad food/water supplies [[00:24],[00:35]].\n4. Speaker B provides a detailed and highly relevant answer, listing specific diseases like scurvy and dysentery, and describing the basic treatments used at the time [[00:36],[01:14]].\n\nThe conversation flows logically from one topic to the next. All responses are on-topic and directly address the questions asked. The short interjections from B (e.g., \"Yeah, yeah,\" \"Sure\") function as affirmations or fillers but do not detract from the relevance of the main responses. The overall coherence and logical consistency are excellent.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pause Analysis:**\n1. There is a 2-second pause between A's first turn (ending at [00:12]) and B's response (starting at [00:14]). This is a natural and acceptable pause for turn-taking.\n2. There is no pause between B's turn (ending at [00:24]) and A's next turn (starting at [00:24]), indicating a smooth transition.\n3. There is a 1-second pause between A's second turn (ending at [00:35]) and B's final response (starting at [00:36]). This is also a very natural, brief pause.\nThere are no prolonged or awkward pauses in the dialogue.\n\n**Overlap Analysis:**\nThe transcript shows several short utterances from speaker B (e.g., [[00:17],[00:18]], [[00:49],[00:51]]). However, the timestamps indicate these occur within speaker B's own speaking turns, not while speaker A is talking. Therefore, they are not conversational overlaps that interrupt the other speaker. They seem to be self-corrections or fillers. Based on the start and end times of the main conversational turns, there are no instances of speakers talking over each other. The interaction is fluid and free of disruptive overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/126",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:08]] A: I can't believe it worked! I mean, I knew a lot of people were unhappy with the vending machines, but I didn't think they'd actually sign a petition.\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:04],[00:05]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:08],[00:11]] B: Yeah, you really made a difference.\n[[00:12],[00:18]] A: It feels good to know that my voice was heard and that I was able to\n[[00:15],[00:16]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:17],[00:28]] B: Sorry to interrupt, but do you think the administration will actually follow through with the changes? Sometimes they just acknowledge petitions but don't take real action.\n[[00:22],[00:23]] B: Sure.\n[[00:29],[00:42]] A: That's a good point. I'm cautiously optimistic, though. They did promise to review the vending machine contracts. But back to what I was saying, it's still sinking in that this might make me more known around campus.\n[[00:33],[00:33]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:35],[00:35]] A: I see.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] A: Uh.\n[[00:43],[00:47]] B: You're definitely going to be known around campus now.\n[[00:44],[00:45]] B: Mm.\n[[00:48],[00:54]] A: I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad because being in the spotlight can be a bit overwhelming at times.\n[[00:50],[00:52]] A: Uh.\n[[00:55],[01:03]] B: Probably a little bit of both. People will definitely respect you for what you did, but they might also be a little intimidated by you.\n[[00:57],[00:58]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[01:04],[01:05]] A: Do you think so?\n[[01:05],[01:09]] B: Yeah, I mean, you're kind of the big man on campus now.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation starts with speaker A expressing excitement over a successful petition. Speaker B's responses are consistently relevant, first affirming A's achievement and then raising a logical, practical question about the administration's follow-through. When A acknowledges B's point but then pivots back to their personal feelings about gaining recognition, B follows this new conversational thread seamlessly. Each turn logically builds upon the previous one, maintaining a coherent and focused discussion. The topic develops naturally from the success of the petition to the potential consequences for speaker A's reputation on campus.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns, indicating a smooth and natural conversational flow. There is one notable overlap between [00:17] and [00:18], where B begins to speak while A is finishing a sentence. However, this is handled expertly, as B explicitly says, \"Sorry to interrupt,\" acknowledging the overlap and making it a polite, natural part of the conversation rather than a disruptive interruption. The other brief \"overlaps\" noted in the transcript are self-corrections or fillers within a single speaker's turn and do not negatively impact the interactional flow. Overall, the turn-taking is smooth and characteristic of an engaged, natural dialogue.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/126",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: What are the biggest trends in transportation right now, especially with ride-sharing and subscription services? How is this changing how people get around and what's coming next?\n[[00:11],[00:17]] B: Ride-sharing and subscriptions are booming because people prefer paying for access rather\n[[00:14],[00:14]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:16],[00:25]] A: Wait, can you explain more about why people are choosing subscriptions over buying cars? Is it just about cost or are there other big reasons?\n[[00:25],[00:35]] B: Oh, it's not just cost, though that's part of it. People love the flexibility—no long-term loans, no maintenance worries, and you can switch\n[[00:28],[00:29]] B: Really.\n[[00:30],[00:31]] B: Mm.\n[[00:34],[00:42]] A: That makes sense, but how are traditional car companies handling this shift? Are they struggling or finding ways to compete with these new services?\n[[00:43],[00:53]] B: They're actually adapting pretty fast! Big automakers are launching their own subscription plans and teaming up with ride-share\n[[00:46],[00:46]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:48],[00:48]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:52],[01:00]] A: Do you think these changes will make car ownership disappear completely, or will some people still want their own vehicles in the future?\n[[01:01],[01:13]] B: Ownership won't vanish entirely—some folks will always want their own car for road trips or privacy. But for daily city use? Shared and subscription options will likely dominate within the next decade.\n[[01:05],[01:06]] B: Uh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A initiates the conversation with a clear, two-part question about current transportation trends. Speaker B begins to answer, and A interjects with a relevant clarifying question to dig deeper into one aspect (subscriptions vs. ownership). B provides a direct and detailed answer. The conversation continues this logical progression, with A asking follow-up questions about how traditional car companies are adapting and the long-term future of car ownership. Each of B's responses directly addresses A's questions, creating a coherent and topically consistent interaction.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the longest pause is one second ([01:00]-[01:01]), which is natural in conversation. The overlaps present are brief and non-disruptive. For instance, A's interruption at [[00:16]] to ask a follow-up question is a sign of active engagement rather than a communication breakdown. The very short, single-word overlaps from B during their own turns (e.g., \"Mm hmm,\" \"Uh huh\") are typical backchanneling or thinking-aloud utterances that contribute to a natural conversational rhythm without impeding the flow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/127",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hey, Lily. Who's that guy over there?\n[[00:03],[00:04]] B: Which one?\n[[00:05],[00:07]] A: The one in the blue\n[[00:06],[00:10]] B: Oh, that's Jamal. He's new here.\n[[00:08],[00:09]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:11],[00:14]] A: He's cute. Do you think he might be single?\n[[00:15],[00:21]] B: Wait, are you planning to talk to him? Because if you are, you should know he's really into photography.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Sure.\n[[00:22],[00:27]] A: Photography? That's interesting! Maybe I could start a conversation about that. Wish me luck!\n[[00:24],[00:24]] A: Uh huh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation flows logically from one point to the next.\n- Speaker A initiates by asking who a person is.\n- Speaker B asks for clarification (\"Which one?\"), which is a relevant and necessary question.\n- Speaker A provides the clarification (\"The one in the blue\").\n- Speaker B then answers the original question (\"Oh, that's Jamal. He's new here.\").\n- The topic shifts naturally to A's interest in Jamal (\"He's cute... single?\").\n- B responds helpfully by providing a potential conversation starter (\"he's really into photography\").\n- A acknowledges this information and decides to act on it (\"Maybe I could start a conversation about that.\").\nEvery turn is coherent and directly related to the previous turns, maintaining a consistent topic and logical progression. The few single-word interjections like \"That's cool\" and \"Uh huh,\" while appearing misplaced in the transcript due to being attributed to a speaker already talking, are likely misattributed backchannels that would make the conversation even more natural if attributed correctly. Fundamentally, the relevance is perfect.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good, with a natural conversational pace.\n- **Pauses:** There are no prolonged pauses between turns. The one-second gaps between speakers are typical for a natural conversation.\n- **Overlaps:** There is a minor overlap between [00:06] and [00:07] where B begins speaking just before A finishes. This is a common and acceptable occurrence in natural dialogue, often indicating that the listener has understood the speaker's point and is eager to respond. Other apparent overlaps, such as B saying \"That's cool\" or \"Sure\" during their own longer sentence, are nonsensical as transcribed and are almost certainly transcription errors rather than actual fluency issues in the interaction itself. Ignoring these clear artifacts, the turn-taking is smooth and effective.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/128",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: Those outfit suggestions sound great, but could you tell me more about how to style the gold camisole for evening wear? I'd love some specific accessory ideas to complete that look.\n[[00:10],[00:20]] B: Absolutely! With a gold camisole, I'd recommend pairing it with delicate gold jewelry like thin layered necklaces. Add some strappy gold heels and\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Really.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Cool.\n[[00:20],[00:29]] A: That sounds perfect, but what about daytime looks with those pants? Could you suggest some casual but stylish options that would work for brunch or shopping?\n[[00:29],[00:38]] B: For daytime, try a loose white linen button-down tied at the waist with sandals. Or go for a fitted black turtleneck with\n[[00:32],[00:32]] B: Really.\n[[00:33],[00:34]] B: I see.\n[[00:37],[00:45]] A: You mentioned a cream cashmere sweater earlier—would that work for both casual and dressy occasions? And what shoes would you pair with that combination?\n[[00:46],[00:56]] B: Oh definitely! The cream sweater is super versatile. For casual, wear it with brown ankle boots. For dressier occasions, swap\n[[00:49],[00:50]] B: Mm.\n[[00:51],[00:52]] B: I see.\n[[00:55],[01:04]] A: Before we finish, could you remind me about the most important care tip for silk? I want to make sure I remember the key thing to avoid when washing them.\n[[01:05],[01:21]] B: The number one rule? Never use hot water or harsh detergents—that's the quickest way to damage silk. Always stick to cold water and gentle soap. And remember, no wringing! Just gently press out the water and lay flat to dry.\n[[01:10],[01:11]] B: Sure.\n[[01:12],[01:12]] B: Really.\n[[01:13],[01:14]] B: Right.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user's responses are consistently relevant and coherent throughout the dialogue. Each response from speaker B directly addresses the specific question asked by speaker A. For example, when A asks for evening wear accessory ideas for a gold camisole, B provides specific and appropriate suggestions (gold jewelry, strappy heels). When A shifts to daytime looks, B offers suitable options (linen shirt, turtleneck). This pattern of direct, on-topic responses continues for every turn, demonstrating excellent logical consistency and topic coherence.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between turns; the conversation flows smoothly with immediate turn-taking (e.g., the transition at 00:10, 00:29, etc.). The transcript notes several very brief, single-word utterances from speaker B during their own turns (e.g., \"Really.\", \"I see.\", \"Sure.\"). These are not overlaps with speaker A's speech and are extremely short (1 second or less). They do not disrupt the flow of B's main response or the overall conversation. There are no extended or harmful overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/128",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: That's interesting about hydro power, but could you explain how rain specifically impacts the prices of fruits and vegetables at my local grocery store?\n[[00:10],[00:20]] B: Absolutely! When there's too much rain, crops can rot in the fields or get damaged during harvest. If there's too little rain, farmers\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Mm.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:19],[00:28]] A: I see how that affects fresh produce, but what about other grocery items like bread or dairy products—does rain influence those prices too?\n[[00:28],[00:40]] B: Yes, indirectly! Grain crops like wheat need rain to grow, so droughts can raise flour prices. That makes bread more expensive. For dairy, cows eat grass or feed crops,\n[[00:32],[00:33]] B: Really.\n[[00:34],[00:34]] B: Really.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:40],[00:49]] A: That makes sense, but could you also explain how heavy rain might disrupt the supply chain beyond just farming? Like, what happens to deliveries and store shelves?\n[[00:50],[01:03]] B: Heavy rain can flood roads or slow down trucks, delaying shipments to stores. Warehouses might struggle with water damage too. If deliveries are late, stores run low on stock, and\n[[00:56],[00:57]] B: Right.\n[[01:02],[01:12]] A: Got it—so rain really does touch everything. One last thing: how can regular people like me prepare for these price swings when the weather gets extreme?\n[[01:12],[01:30]] B: Good question! Buying seasonal produce helps since it’s less affected by shortages. Stocking up on non-perishables during stable weather can save money later. Also, comparing prices between stores and using sales can soften the blow when prices rise. Small habits make a difference!\n[[01:18],[01:18]] B: Ummm.\n[[01:19],[01:20]] B: Cool.\n[[01:21],[01:21]] B: Ummm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B consistently provides direct, logical, and detailed answers to Speaker A's questions. The conversation flows coherently from the impact of rain on produce prices, to its effect on other grocery items like bread and dairy, then to broader supply chain disruptions, and finally to practical advice for consumers. Each response from B builds upon the previous turn and directly addresses the specific query raised by A, maintaining a clear and consistent topic throughout the interaction.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a smooth and natural conversational rhythm. For example, Speaker B begins their response at [[00:10]] immediately after Speaker A finishes at [[00:10]]. While the transcript notes several very brief, single-word utterances from Speaker B during their own speaking turns (e.g., \"Mm,\" \"Really,\" \"Right\"), these are not extended overlaps between the two different speakers. They function more like brief filler words and do not disrupt the flow of information or create confusion. There are no instances of Speaker A and Speaker B talking over each other for any significant duration. The turn-taking is crisp and efficient.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/128",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: What are your favorite cooking apps?\n[[00:03],[00:06]] B: Are you talking about apps on my\n[[00:05],[00:05]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:05],[00:11]] A: Yes, I meant apps on your phone. So, what are the best ones you've found?\n[[00:07],[00:08]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:13],[00:20]] B: I just use the website recipe.com. I love using it when I'm hungry and don't have the time to search through cookbooks.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:21],[00:26]] A: Sorry to cut in, but is recipe.com mobile-friendly? I mean, does it work well on your phone?\n[[00:23],[00:24]] A: Really.\n[[00:28],[00:34]] B: Yes, it works great on my phone. I was going to say I don't know what to make sometimes, and the site gives me ideas quickly.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: Mm.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Uh huh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent topic coherence. Speaker A starts by asking about \"cooking apps.\" Speaker B seeks clarification and then offers a website they use for recipes. Speaker A logically follows up by asking if the website is mobile-friendly, which connects B's answer back to the original context of using a phone for recipes. B's final response directly answers A's question and elaborates on why they like the website. All turns are directly relevant and build upon the previous ones, creating a logically consistent and coherent conversation.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good and sounds natural. There is a noticeable overlap between [00:05] and [00:06], but it's functional as Speaker A is answering the clarifying question Speaker B is in the middle of asking. Speaker A's interruption at [00:21] is explicitly acknowledged (\"Sorry to cut in\"), which is a natural conversational repair strategy. The pauses between turns (e.g., [00:01]-[00:03], [00:11]-[00:13]) are of normal length for conversation and do not disrupt the flow. Brief backchannels like \"Mm hmm\" are used appropriately to show engagement. There are no prolonged, awkward pauses or disruptive extended overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/129",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:14]] A: Could you tell me more about how the Air Ministry changed people's opinions about flying back in the early 1900s? I'm really interested in understanding what specific things they did to make aviation appear safer and more trustworthy to regular folks.\n[[00:14],[00:21]] B: Sure! The Air Ministry focused on two big areas - better technology and\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:20],[00:32]] A: Wait, before you go into the technology part, could you explain what kind of public outreach they did first? I'm curious how they actually convinced everyday people that flying wasn't so dangerous anymore.\n[[00:33],[00:43]] B: Absolutely! They organized spectacular air shows where crowds could see planes flying safely. They also worked with newspapers to share\n[[00:36],[00:37]] B: Right.\n[[00:38],[00:39]] B: Really.\n[[00:42],[00:50]] A: That's interesting about the air shows - do you know if they let regular people actually go up in planes during these events to experience flying for themselves?\n[[00:50],[01:00]] B: Yes! Many air shows offered short demonstration flights to the public. This hands-on experience was powerful - when\n[[00:53],[00:54]] B: Right.\n[[00:54],[00:55]] B: Uh.\n[[00:59],[01:09]] A: Going back to the technology improvements you mentioned earlier, could you give me some examples of specific safety features they developed that helped reduce accidents during that time?\n[[01:09],[01:20]] B: They introduced several key innovations - more reliable engines that rarely failed, better navigation instruments for bad weather, and early\n[[01:13],[01:13]] B: Uh huh.\n[[01:14],[01:15]] B: Mhm.\n[[01:19],[01:30]] A: That makes sense about the technical improvements, but how long did it actually take for public opinion to shift? Was this a quick change or did it take many years of these efforts?\n[[01:30],[01:48]] B: It was definitely a gradual process over about 15-20 years. Public trust built slowly as people saw consistent safety improvements and more successful flights year after year. The combination of better planes and smart publicity eventually worked.\n[[01:35],[01:36]] B: Sure.\n[[01:38],[01:38]] B: Mhm.\n[[01:39],[01:40]] B: Uh huh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B consistently provides direct and informative answers to Speaker A's questions. When Speaker A interrupts at [00:20] to redirect the conversation from technology to public outreach, Speaker B adapts immediately and provides a relevant answer about air shows and newspapers. Every subsequent question from A is a logical follow-up to B's previous statement, and B's answers remain coherent and on-topic. For example, A asks a clarifying question about air shows ([00:42]), and B provides a specific answer about demonstration flights ([00:50]). The conversation maintains a clear and consistent focus on the central theme without any deviations.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns, indicating a smooth and natural conversational flow. The overlaps that occur are brief, typically lasting only a second (e.g., at [00:20], [00:42], [00:59]). These are not disruptive but rather functional interruptions where Speaker A eagerly jumps in to ask a follow-up question or guide the topic. This type of dynamic turn-taking is characteristic of an engaged and natural conversation. The very short \"uh huh\" or \"mhm\" utterances from B within their own turns are minor backchannels and do not impede the overall clarity or flow of the dialogue.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/129",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: Yes, I am looking for a train leaving Cambridge on Tuesday.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:04],[00:12]] B: I can help you with that. The first one departs at 05:00 and the last train runs at 13:00. How many tickets would you\n[[00:06],[00:07]] B: Cool.\n[[00:08],[00:09]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:11],[00:15]] A: Also, the destination is London Kings Cross and leaves after 12:30.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] A: Um.\n[[00:16],[00:21]] B: There is a train leaving at 13:00 that fits your criteria. Would you like me to book it for you?\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Right.\n[[00:21],[00:23]] A: Yes, please, just one ticket.\n[[00:24],[00:36]] B: Great! Your booking was successful. The fee will be 23.6 GBP payable at the station. Would you like the reference number now, or would you prefer to receive it via email?\n[[00:28],[00:28]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Uh.\n[[00:36],[00:41]] A: Yes, please. I am also looking for attractions in the East part of town.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] A: Sure.\n[[00:41],[00:50]] B: Your reference number is D1PGC203. There are several attractions in the east. May I suggest the Camboats boat?\n[[00:44],[00:46]] B: Um.\n[[00:51],[00:53]] A: Sure. Could I get their phone number, please?\n[[00:54],[01:00]] B: Sure! The phone number is: 01223902112\n[[01:00],[01:04]] A: That's all I needed today. Thank you for your help.\n[[01:05],[01:10]] B: You're quite welcome. Just let us know if you find yourself needing more information. Have a great day!",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B consistently provides accurate and logical responses to Speaker A's requests. The conversation starts with a request for a train, and B provides relevant options. When A adds more specific criteria (destination and time), B successfully narrows down the search and finds a suitable train. The dialogue then smoothly transitions to a new task (finding attractions) after the first task is completed. B provides the requested reference number before addressing the new query, showing it can handle multi-intent turns coherently. Every response is on-topic and directly contributes to fulfilling the user's goals.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is generally good, with no long pauses between turns. The turn-taking is mostly smooth and natural. There is one notable overlap between [00:11] and [00:12], where A interrupts B to provide additional details. This is a common form of barge-in in human conversation, and the system (B) handles it gracefully by incorporating the new information in its subsequent turn. The other overlaps noted in the transcript are self-overlaps (e.g., B saying \"Cool\" or \"Right\" during their own turn), which are likely system-generated backchannels or thinking-aloud utterances. While slightly unnatural, they do not disrupt the flow of the conversation between the two speakers. Overall, the interaction proceeds at a good pace without any harmful fluency issues.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/129",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hey dad, I wanted to talk to you about something.\n[[00:04],[00:05]] B: What's up, son?\n[[00:05],[00:17]] A: I've been saving up for a while and I've finally saved enough money to move out of your house. I'm excited to move into my own place and start living indepen—\n[[00:09],[00:09]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:10],[00:11]] A: Mm.\n[[00:12],[00:13]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:15],[00:21]] B: Wait, are you sure you've considered all the expenses? Moving out can be more costly than it seems.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Sure.\n[[00:22],[00:30]] A: Yes, I've thought about it. I've calculated rent, utilities, groceries, and other essentials. I'm really excited for this next phase in my life.\n[[00:24],[00:25]] A: I see.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:31],[00:42]] B: That's great news, Efraim! We're proud of you for saving up and we think you're ready for this next step. We'll definitely miss having you around the house but we know this is a big moment for you.\n[[00:34],[00:35]] B: Mm.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] B: Mm.\n[[00:43],[00:48]] A: I'll miss you guys too, but I think it's time for me to grow and take on this responsibility.\n[[00:45],[00:46]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:49],[00:56]] B: We just want you to be happy and safe, son. Make sure you keep in touch and let us know how you're doing, okay?\n[[00:53],[00:54]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:58],[01:01]] A: Of course, dad. I'll talk to you soon. Thanks for everything.\n[[01:02],[01:05]] B: You're welcome, son. We love you.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue presents a conversation between a son (A) and his father (B) about the son moving out.\n- The conversation starts with A announcing his intention to move out.\n- B responds with a typical parental concern about the financial aspects.\n- A reassures B that he has planned for the expenses.\n- B then shifts to a supportive and proud tone, expressing that they will miss him.\n- The conversation concludes with mutual expressions of love and promises to stay in touch.\nEach speaker's turn is a direct and logical response to the previous one. The topic is coherent throughout, and the emotional progression of the dialogue feels natural and consistent with the scenario. There are no instances of irrelevant or illogical responses.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is analyzed by looking at pauses and overlaps.\n- **Pauses:** The pauses between speaker turns are brief (1-2 seconds), which is typical for a natural conversation (e.g., [[00:02],[00:04]], [[00:56],[00:58]]). There are no long, awkward silences that would disrupt the flow.\n- **Overlaps:** There are several instances of what appear to be transcription errors, where a speaker overlaps with themselves (e.g., A at [00:09], B at [00:18]). Assuming these are backchannels from the other listener, they are short, supportive affirmations (\"Mm hmm,\" \"I see\") and indicate active listening, which is a positive sign of fluency. There is one significant overlap from [[00:15],[00:17]], where B begins to speak while A is finishing his sentence. This is a natural-sounding interruption, where B is eager to express his concern. It is not a disruptive or extended overlap and contributes to the realism of the dialogue.\nOverall, the flow is smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/131",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: Look at this! This is a magazine from 1978.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:04],[00:06]] B: Wow, that's crazy.\n[[00:06],[00:10]] A: I know, can you believe it? Look at the clothes they're\n[[00:08],[00:08]] A: Really.\n[[00:09],[00:15]] B: Sorry, but do you think any of these styles might come back into fashion? I mean, trends do tend to cycle.\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: Right.\n[[00:16],[00:28]] A: That's a good point. Fashion is definitely cyclical. I was just going to mention the hairstyles too—they're so distinct. But yeah, it's interesting to see how much things have changed since then.\n[[00:19],[00:21]] A: Mm.\n[[00:28],[00:34]] B: It really is. And who knows, maybe we'll see some of these trends make a comeback in the next few years.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Mhm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the provided dialogue transcript for Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n- Speaker A initiates the conversation by pointing out a magazine from 1978.\n- Speaker B responds appropriately with \"Wow, that's crazy,\" showing engagement.\n- Speaker A elaborates by starting to comment on the clothes.\n- Speaker B interrupts to ask a relevant and thought-provoking question about whether the styles might come back into fashion, building directly on A's comment about clothes. This shows B is actively listening and contributing to the topic.\n- Speaker A acknowledges B's point (\"That's a good point. Fashion is definitely cyclical\") before adding their own observation about hairstyles, demonstrating good conversational give-and-take.\n- Speaker B's final turn agrees with A and circles back to their earlier point about trends returning.\n- Throughout the dialogue, both speakers stick to the central topic of the 1978 magazine and its fashion. The conversation evolves logically from observation to speculation. All responses are relevant and coherent.\n\n\n\n**Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\n- **Pauses:** I will check for long pauses between turns.\n - Between A at [00:03] and B at [00:04], there is a 1-second pause, which is natural.\n - Between B at [00:15] and A at [00:16], there is a 1-second pause, which is also natural.\n - There are no prolonged or awkward pauses in the dialogue. Turn-taking is generally swift.\n\n- **Overlaps:** I will check for extended or disruptive overlaps.\n - There is a noticeable overlap between [00:09] and [00:10]. Speaker A is saying \"...Look at the clothes they're\" while Speaker B begins their turn with \"Sorry, but do you think...\". B interrupts A. However, B prefaces the interruption with \"Sorry,\" acknowledging the cut-in. The interruption itself is highly relevant and moves the conversation forward. This kind of engaged interruption is very common in natural human conversation and does not indicate poor fluency; in fact, it shows active listening. It is brief and handled well.\n- Other overlaps noted in the transcript (e.g., A at [00:08], B at [00:12], A at [00:19], B at [00:31]) are brief backchannels or self-corrections, which are typical features of natural speech and do not harm the interactional flow.\n\n- **Conclusion:** The interaction is fluid and natural. There are no harmful pauses, and the one significant overlap is managed appropriately and is characteristic of an engaged conversation rather than a fluency breakdown.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/131",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Hey, man. You up for a game?\n[[00:03],[00:05]] B: You know I am. Let's go.\n[[00:06],[00:10]] A: All right. I'll let you serve first this\n[[00:07],[00:08]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:09],[00:14]] B: Actually, before we start, I wanted to ask—have you been practicing any new techniques?\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:15],[00:22]] A: I have, but I was going to say, I'll let you serve first this time. Anyway, yeah, I've been working on my backhand.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:22],[00:25]] B: Nice! I can't wait to see that in action.\n[[00:27],[00:29]] A: Thank you, sir. I appreciate your kindness.\n[[00:31],[00:37]] B: No problem. Just don't get too comfortable, because I'm going to whoop your game this time, no holding back.\n[[00:33],[00:33]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:34],[00:35]] B: Sure.\n[[00:38],[00:42]] A: Hold up, before you get too confident, remember what happened last time?\n[[00:40],[00:41]] A: Um.\n[[00:44],[00:45]] B: Ha! We'll see about that!\n[[00:47],[00:50]] A: Well, that was fun. You gave me a good run there.\n[[00:48],[00:49]] A: Uh.\n[[00:51],[00:55]] B: Yeah, I did my best. But you're still the better player.\n[[00:53],[00:54]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:57],[01:02]] A: That's not true. You've gotten a lot better lately. I think you might even beat me one of these days.\n[[00:59],[01:00]] A: Mhm.\n[[01:04],[01:06]] B: I doubt it, but it's nice to dream about it.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation follows a logical and coherent path. It begins with one speaker (A) inviting the other (B) to a game. B accepts, and they engage in some pre-game talk about practicing new techniques, followed by some friendly competitive banter. There is a clear, implied time jump to after the game, where they discuss the outcome and compliment each other's performance. Every turn is a direct and logical response to the preceding one, maintaining a consistent topic and context. For example, when B asks about new techniques, A answers directly and then finishes their previous thought, showing good conversational awareness. The transition from pre-game talk to post-game reflection is handled smoothly and makes sense within the narrative of the interaction.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are a few pauses between turns, such as the two-second gaps at [[00:01]-[00:03]] and [[00:25]-[00:27]], but these are well within the range of natural conversation and do not feel awkward or disruptive. The overlaps present are mostly brief backchannels (\"Yeah, yeah,\" \"Mhm\") which indicate active listening and engagement, a hallmark of fluent conversation. The one significant overlap, where B interrupts A at [[00:09]], is a natural conversational maneuver to introduce a related thought (\"Actually, before we start...\"). A handles this interruption smoothly by acknowledging it and then returning to their original point. The few instances where a speaker overlaps with their own utterance are minor and do not hinder the flow of the dialogue between the two participants. Overall, the turn-taking is smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/132",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: I'm in a lot of pain right now. It feels like there's something wrong with my arm.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:05],[00:07]] B: What happened? Let me\n[[00:05],[00:12]] A: I don't know. I was just sitting here and all of a sudden I felt this sharp pain in my right arm. It's really bad.\n[[00:08],[00:08]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:10],[00:10]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:13],[00:21]] B: Do you think it could be something serious, like a fracture or a sprain? Maybe we should call a doctor or get you to the hospital immediately.\n[[00:15],[00:17]] B: Uh.\n[[00:18],[00:18]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:22],[00:27]] A: Let's go to the hospital and get it checked out. You might have injured yourself without realizing it.\n[[00:24],[00:25]] A: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains topic coherence throughout the interaction. Speaker A introduces the topic of being in pain, and Speaker B responds relevantly by asking for more information and suggesting a course of action (going to a doctor/hospital). Speaker A then agrees with the suggestion. There is a slight logical inconsistency in A's final turn ([[00:22],[00:27]]), where they say, \"You might have injured yourself,\" to B, even though A is the one who is injured. However, this is a minor error in an otherwise logically consistent and relevant conversation, and the main point of the turn (agreeing to go to the hospital) is clear.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. The turn-taking is mostly smooth with natural pauses between speakers. There is one notable overlap from [00:05] to [00:07], where both speakers talk at the same time. However, this can be interpreted as a natural feature of an urgent conversation. Speaker A, being in pain, urgently explains their situation, talking over Speaker B's attempt to interject. This brief overlap does not significantly hinder the flow of communication, which otherwise proceeds smoothly.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/132",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:07]] A: What are the different types of fruit and how do plants produce them? I'm curious about the different categories and formation process.\n[[00:08],[00:15]] B: Fruits come in many types like berries, drupes, and pomes. They form when flowers\n[[00:10],[00:12]] B: Cool.\n[[00:14],[00:20]] A: Could you give me examples of fruits that aren't sweet? I'm interested in learning about less common fruit varieties.\n[[00:21],[00:32]] B: Sure! Tomatoes, avocados, and bell peppers are all fruits that aren't sweet. Olives and cucumbers are other examples people often don't realize are fruits.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] B: Sure.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A begins by asking a two-part question about the types of fruit and their formation process. Speaker B starts to answer the first part of the question directly. Speaker A then interjects with a new, but closely related, question about non-sweet fruits. Speaker B immediately and relevantly answers this new question. The entire conversation remains on the topic of fruits, and each turn is a logical and coherent response to the previous one, even with the change in direction initiated by Speaker A.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long, disruptive pauses between turns; the pauses at [00:07]-[00:08] and [00:20]-[00:21] are natural one-second gaps. There are a few overlaps, but they do not significantly harm the interaction. The overlaps from speaker B at [00:10]-[00:12] and [00:27]-[00:28] are self-overlaps within their own turn and do not disrupt the other speaker. The overlap from Speaker A at [00:14]-[00:15] is a brief interruption, but Speaker B yields the floor gracefully and the conversation continues smoothly. The absence of prolonged pauses and the fluid recovery from the brief overlap indicate a high level of fluency.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/132",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: I'm so angry with you, Dedric. I can't believe you would do something like that.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Uh.\n[[00:05],[00:08]] B: I'm sorry, Alysha. I didn't mean to hurt you.\n[[00:06],[00:07]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:10],[00:15]] A: You hurt me more than you'll ever know. Do you have any idea how much this hurts?\n[[00:12],[00:13]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:17],[00:20]] B: I'm sorry, Alysha. I truly am.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Uh.\n[[00:20],[00:26]] A: Sorry isn't good enough, Dedric. You need to be punished for what you\n[[00:23],[00:23]] A: Cool.\n[[00:26],[00:31]] B: Wait, punished? What do you mean by punished? Are you serious about this?\n[[00:28],[00:29]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:32],[00:37]] A: I mean that you need to be taught a lesson so that you never do anything like this again.\n[[00:34],[00:35]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:38],[00:40]] B: And how do you propose to do that?\n[[00:42],[00:43]] A: I'm going to smack you.\n[[00:44],[00:45]] B: You're going to hit me?\n[[00:47],[00:54]] A: Yes, I am. And it's going to hurt. But hopefully it will teach you a lesson so that you never do anything like this again.\n[[00:49],[00:50]] A: I see.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A begins by expressing anger, and Speaker B responds appropriately with an apology. A's rejection of the apology and escalation to the topic of \"punishment\" is a coherent, though dramatic, progression of the argument. Each subsequent turn is a direct and logical response to the previous one: B questions the meaning of punishment, A explains it, B asks for specifics, A provides them, B expresses disbelief, and A confirms their intention. The conversation follows a clear and logical path from expressing anger to threatening physical punishment, with each step being a relevant reaction to the one before it.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no extended overlaps where the speakers talk over each other. All the listed overlaps are self-overlaps (e.g., A says \"Uh\" during their own turn), which function as fillers or hesitations and do not disrupt the flow of the conversation. The pauses between turns are brief (1-2 seconds), which is entirely natural and appropriate for a tense and emotional conversation, allowing for moments of thought or hesitation without creating awkward or disruptive silence. The turn-taking is smooth and clear.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/132",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: I really want to improve my hydration habits at work since I often forget during long meetings. Could you suggest some easy ways to remember to drink water when I'm busy with my job?\n[[00:11],[00:18]] B: Sure thing! First, keep a water bottle right on your desk where you'll see it often.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:17],[00:25]] A: That sounds helpful, but what about when I'm in back-to-back meetings all day? How can I make sure I don't go hours without drinking anything?\n[[00:26],[00:32]] B: Great question! Try drinking a full glass right before each meeting starts. You could also\n[[00:28],[00:28]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:30],[00:30]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:31],[00:39]] A: I don't always enjoy plain water though. Could you tell me which fruits and vegetables have high water content that might help me stay hydrated?\n[[00:39],[00:50]] B: Absolutely! Strawberries and oranges are super juicy and make great snacks. For veggies, celery and zucchini are packed\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:45],[00:46]] B: Um.\n[[00:49],[00:56]] A: That's good to know! How much water should I actually be drinking each day, and does coffee count toward my daily intake at all?\n[[00:57],[01:03]] B: Most adults need about eight glasses daily, but coffee doesn't hydrate you the same way. It's better\n[[01:00],[01:01]] B: Right.\n[[01:03],[01:10]] A: What about those days when I'm just not thirsty at all? Are there any signs I should watch for that mean I'm getting dehydrated at work?\n[[01:11],[01:21]] B: Definitely! If you feel tired, get headaches, or notice dark urine, those are warning signs. Even without thirst, try sipping water regularly throughout your workday.\n[[01:14],[01:15]] B: Really.\n[[01:16],[01:18]] B: Mm hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B consistently provides direct and helpful answers to Speaker A's questions. The conversation flows logically from a general problem (forgetting to drink water) to more specific queries, such as what to do during back-to-back meetings, alternatives to plain water, daily intake amounts, and signs of dehydration. Each turn builds upon the previous one, maintaining perfect topic coherence throughout the interaction. There are no instances of irrelevant or illogical responses.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, awkward pauses between speaker turns; the transitions are smooth and timely, with gaps of one second or less. The few instances of overlap between speakers are very brief (one second) and are typical of natural, engaged conversation, indicating active listening rather than interruption. The short interjections from Speaker B (e.g., \"Mhm,\" \"Hmm,\" \"Right\") occur within their own speaking turns and act as filler words or thinking-aloud moments, which do not disrupt the flow of the conversation with Speaker A.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/132",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:12]] A: Could you explain in more detail why this ranch style home would be perfect for someone starting out or downsizing? I'm really curious about how the single floor layout and outdoor space would work for different lifestyles.\n[[00:12],[00:20]] B: Single floor living makes everything easier - no stairs to climb, which is great for\n[[00:15],[00:15]] B: Right.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:19],[00:27]] A: Wait, before you go on, could you tell me more about the outdoor space? I'm wondering how big it is and what kind of activities it could accommodate?\n[[00:27],[00:35]] B: The backyard is about a quarter acre with a nice patio area perfect for barbecues. There's plenty of room for gardening or\n[[00:30],[00:30]] B: Right.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Cool.\n[[00:34],[00:43]] A: That sounds great! But going back to the low-maintenance features, could you explain how the new roof and siding specifically reduce upkeep compared to older homes?\n[[00:43],[00:56]] B: The roof uses modern materials that last 30 years instead of the usual 15-20. The vinyl siding never needs painting and resists weather\n[[00:47],[00:48]] B: Right.\n[[00:49],[00:50]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:51],[00:52]] B: Uh.\n[[00:56],[01:06]] A: That's really helpful! One last thing - you mentioned reclaimed wood floors earlier. Could you tell me more about why they're low-maintenance compared to other flooring options?\n[[01:07],[01:23]] B: Reclaimed wood is naturally durable because it's already aged and stabilized. It hides scratches well and only needs simple sweeping - no special cleaners or treatments. The character it adds is a bonus that never goes out of style!\n[[01:11],[01:12]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[01:13],[01:14]] B: Sure.\n[[01:15],[01:16]] B: Mm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A asks a series of clear, specific, and logically connected questions about a property. Speaker B provides direct, on-topic, and informative answers to each of A's questions. For example, when A asks about the outdoor space ([00:19]), B immediately provides the size and potential uses ([00:27]). When A redirects the conversation back to low-maintenance features ([00:34]), B explains the benefits of the new roof and siding ([00:43]). The entire conversation is coherent and logically structured, with each turn building upon the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the transitions are smooth and natural. For instance, Speaker B begins speaking immediately after Speaker A finishes at [00:12], [00:27], [00:43], and [00:56]. While there are interruptions (e.g., A at [00:19] and [00:34]), they function as natural interjections to redirect the conversation, which is common in engaged dialogue. B yields the floor appropriately in both cases. The other brief overlaps are short, affirming backchannels (e.g., \"Right,\" \"Mm hmm\") which do not disrupt the flow and indicate active listening. The interaction feels dynamic and natural, not disjointed or problematic.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/132",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: Could you tell me more about the baptism rituals in the Methodist Church? I'm particularly interested in understanding each step and what they mean for someone getting baptized.\n[[00:11],[00:20]] B: Sure! In Methodist baptism, first the minister introduces the candidates and explains baptism's meaning. Then candidates\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Really.\n[[00:19],[00:29]] A: That's helpful! Could you explain why the Methodist Church uses both water and oil in baptism, and how these elements connect to their beliefs about God's grace?\n[[00:30],[00:51]] B: Water represents cleansing from sin and new life in Christ, showing God's forgiving grace. Oil symbolizes the Holy Spirit's presence and God's healing power. Together they show how baptism connects us to God's love - washing us clean and filling us with spiritual strength for our Christian journey.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:38],[00:39]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:40],[00:41]] B: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A begins with a clear, specific question about Methodist baptism rituals. Speaker B provides a direct and informative answer, starting to outline the initial steps as requested. Speaker A then asks a logical follow-up question, narrowing the focus to the symbolic use of water and oil. Speaker B's second response is also highly relevant, explaining the symbolism of each element and connecting it directly to the theological concept of grace, perfectly addressing A's inquiry. The conversation maintains a consistent topic and progresses logically from a general question to a more specific one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The pauses between the main speaker turns are very short (1 second), indicating a natural and engaged conversational rhythm. There is a single, brief overlap of one second ([[00:19],[00:20]]) where Speaker A begins their turn just as Speaker B is finishing. This type of brief overlap is common in natural conversation and does not disrupt the flow. The multiple short interjections from Speaker B (e.g., \"Uh huh,\" \"Okay,okay\") occur during the other speaker's turns (or, in the case of the flawed transcript, during their own turn). Assuming these are backchannels showing active listening (and are likely misattributed by the transcription system), they contribute to a smooth, interactive feel rather than hindering it. There are no extended, disruptive overlaps or awkwardly long pauses.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/133",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:06]] A: I'm really concerned about my mom's skin. She has so many moles all over her face.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Cool.\n[[00:03],[00:03]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:06],[00:09]] B: Oh, that's a lot of moles! Do they seem to\n[[00:08],[00:16]] A: Sorry to cut in, but yes, they do change sometimes. Sometimes they disappear, but they always come back.\n[[00:11],[00:12]] A: Really.\n[[00:12],[00:13]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:17],[00:24]] B: That sounds unusual. Does she have any other symptoms, like changes in her skin texture or any itching or bleeding from the moles?\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Mm.\n[[00:21],[00:21]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:25],[00:30]] A: She does get really bad allergies sometimes, but I haven't noticed any changes in skin texture.\n[[00:27],[00:27]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:31],[00:41]] B: I'd really recommend she get an annual exam. If she hasn't already, she should get a baseline skin exam and blood work done. She can probably get that done at her primary care physician.\n[[00:34],[00:34]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: I see.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue based on response relevance and interactional fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n- The dialogue starts with Speaker A expressing concern about their mother's moles. This sets a clear topic.\n- Speaker B responds appropriately by acknowledging the concern (\"Oh, that's a lot of moles!\") and beginning to ask a relevant diagnostic question (\"Do they seem to...\").\n- Speaker A interrupts, but the interruption is highly relevant, as they anticipate and answer the likely question about whether the moles change (\"yes, they do change sometimes\").\n- Speaker B follows up logically, asking for more specific symptoms based on A's answer (\"changes in her skin texture or any itching or bleeding\").\n- Speaker A answers the question directly (\"haven't noticed any changes in skin texture\") and adds potentially related information about allergies.\n- Speaker B provides a logical and responsible conclusion by recommending a medical exam based on the information shared.\n- The conversation is coherent, logically consistent, and stays on topic throughout. Each turn builds upon the previous one.\n\n**Conclusion:** The response relevance is excellent. The dialogue flows logically from a statement of concern to a final recommendation.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pause Analysis:**\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transition from one speaker to the next is immediate, as shown by the timestamps (e.g., A ends at [00:06], B starts at [00:06]; A ends at [00:16], B starts at [00:17]; A ends at [00:30], B starts at [00:31]). This indicates a smooth and natural conversational pace.\n\n**Overlap Analysis:**\n- There is one significant overlap from [00:08] to [00:09], where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B.\n- However, this overlap is not extended (it lasts for about one second).\n- Crucially, Speaker A immediately acknowledges and apologizes for the interruption (\"Sorry to cut in...\"). This is a common feature of natural, engaged conversation and shows social awareness. It doesn't disrupt the flow negatively; in fact, it moves the conversation forward efficiently.\n- Other overlaps noted in the transcript are self-talk or backchannels from the speaker who has the floor (e.g., B saying \"Mm\" while talking), which do not disrupt the interaction between the two speakers.\n\n**Conclusion:** The interactional fluency is excellent. The conversation flows smoothly without detrimental pauses, and the one instance of an overlapping turn is brief, handled politely, and is characteristic of natural human dialogue.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/133",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:14]] A: I love the idea of collecting virtual souvenirs while learning about landmarks! Could you tell me more about how these souvenirs work and what kinds of items players might collect? I'm especially curious about cultural items from different countries.\n[[00:15],[00:25]] B: Sure thing! The souvenirs are fun digital items tied to each landmark's culture. For example, at the Eiffel Tower you might\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] B: Right.\n[[00:23],[00:38]] A: That sounds amazing! Could you add more historical details to the tours? I'd love to hear interesting stories about how these landmarks were built and why they're important. What kind of historical facts would players discover during the game?\n[[00:39],[01:01]] B: We'll include fascinating historical facts throughout each tour. For the Great Wall of China, you'd learn about its construction challenges and how it protected China. For the Pyramids, we'd share stories about ancient Egyptian builders. All facts are carefully researched and presented in short, engaging segments.\n[[00:45],[00:46]] B: Mm.\n[[00:47],[00:48]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:49],[00:50]] B: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance.\n\n1. **A's first turn ([00:00]-[00:14]):** A asks about how virtual souvenirs work and for examples of cultural items.\n2. **B's first response ([00:15]-[00:25]):** B directly answers the question, explaining that souvenirs are digital items tied to a landmark's culture and starts to give an example for the Eiffel Tower. This response is directly relevant and coherent.\n3. **A's second turn ([00:23]-[00:38]):** A expresses enthusiasm for the idea and then pivots to a related question about adding historical details and facts to the virtual tours. This is a logical and coherent continuation of the conversation topic.\n4. **B's second response ([00:39]-[01:01]):** B confirms they will add historical facts and provides specific examples for the Great Wall of China and the Pyramids. This response directly and thoroughly addresses A's question.\n\nThe conversation is logically consistent and stays on the topic of the virtual landmark tour game. All responses are relevant to the preceding questions.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, specifically looking for extended overlaps and long pauses.\n\n1. **Pauses:**\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's turn ending at [00:14] and B's turn beginning at [00:15]. This is a natural turn-taking gap.\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's turn ending at [00:38] and B's turn beginning at [00:39]. This is also a natural and smooth transition.\n * There are no long, awkward pauses in the conversation.\n\n2. **Overlaps:**\n * Speaker A begins their second turn at [00:23], while Speaker B is still speaking (their turn ends at [00:25]). This creates a brief, 2-second overlap. This type of interruption, likely driven by A's enthusiasm (\"That sounds amazing!\"), is common in natural conversation and is not disruptive. Speaker B cedes the floor smoothly.\n * The backchannels listed for B (e.g., at [00:18], [00:45]) occur during B's own main utterances according to the timestamps. This is likely a transcript error, but even if B is murmuring affirmations while speaking, it does not represent a problematic overlap between the two speakers.\n\nThe interaction flows smoothly with natural pacing. There are no extended, harmful overlaps or long pauses.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/134",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:00]] A: Hello?\n[[00:00],[00:02]] B: Hi, what's going on?\n[[00:03],[00:08]] A: I fell down the stairs and I think I've broken my\n[[00:05],[00:06]] A: Um.\n[[00:07],[00:11]] B: Oh no, that sounds serious! Are you in a lot of pain right now?\n[[00:08],[00:09]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:13],[00:18]] A: Yes, it hurts a lot. Can you help me? My address is 123 Main Street.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:18],[00:20]] B: And what's your phone number?\n[[00:21],[00:24]] A: It's 555-1234.\n[[00:25],[00:30]] B: All right, we're going to send an ambulance to your location. Is there anyone else at home with you?\n[[00:27],[00:28]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:30],[00:33]] A: No, it's just me. I'm alone here.\n[[00:34],[00:42]] B: Just you? Okay, make sure to stay still to avoid further injury. Do you have any ice packs or something to help with the swelling?\n[[00:37],[00:37]] B: Um.\n[[00:39],[00:39]] B: Sure.\n[[00:43],[00:49]] A: No, I don't have anything like that. Can you make sure the ambulance comes quickly? I'm really scared.\n[[00:46],[00:47]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:50],[00:55]] B: Okay, we'll have someone there shortly. Just try to stay calm and stay put, all right?\n[[00:52],[00:53]] B: Right.\n[[00:56],[00:57]] A: All right. Thank you.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue based on response relevance and interactional fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n- The dialogue follows a very logical and coherent structure for an emergency call.\n- Speaker A initiates the call and states the emergency (\"I fell down the stairs and I think I've broken my...\").\n- Speaker B responds appropriately by asking clarifying and essential questions to assess the situation and gather information (\"Are you in a lot of pain?\", \"what's your phone number?\", \"Is there anyone else at home with you?\").\n- Speaker A's answers are direct and provide the necessary details (address, phone number, pain level).\n- The topic of the emergency is maintained throughout the conversation.\n- There are some odd, self-overlapping interjections like A saying \"That's cool\" ([00:15]) while describing being in pain, and B saying \"That's cool\" ([00:27]) while dispatching an ambulance. While the content of these specific interjections is logically inconsistent with the serious tone, they appear to be filler words or transcription artifacts that do not derail the primary, coherent flow of the conversation. The main utterances from both speakers remain highly relevant and logically consistent.\n\n**Conclusion for Response Relevance:** The core conversation is perfectly relevant and coherent. The strange interjections are minor flaws but do not fundamentally break the logical consistency or topic coherence of the interaction.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue based on response relevance and interactional fluency.\n\n**Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\n- **Pauses:** I will check for long pauses between turns.\n - [00:02]-[00:03]: 1-second pause (Normal)\n - [00:11]-[00:13]: 2-second pause (Acceptable, given the emergency context)\n - All other pauses between turns are 1 second.\n - There are no prolonged, harmful pauses. The turn-taking pace is natural.\n- **Overlaps:** I will check for extended, disruptive overlaps.\n - [00:07]-[00:08]: B overlaps A for about 1 second. This is an empathetic reaction (\"Oh no...\") and is a natural feature of conversation, not a harmful interruption.\n - [00:08]-[00:09]: B provides a brief backchannel (\"Yeah, yeah\") at the end of A's turn. This is normal.\n - Other overlaps are self-overlaps where a speaker says a short phrase during their own longer utterance (e.g., A: \"That's cool\", B: \"Right.\"). These are likely filler words or transcription artifacts and do not represent a fluency issue between the two speakers. They are not interrupting each other.\n\n**Conclusion for Interactional Fluency:** The conversation flows smoothly with no disruptive pauses or extended overlaps between the speakers. The interaction is fluid and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/134",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:09]] A: Can I get a graduate degree in a different field than my undergraduate major? I'm curious if this is possible and what steps I might need to take to make this happen.\n[[00:11],[00:20]] B: Yes, you can definitely pursue a different field for graduate studies. Many programs accept students from various\n[[00:14],[00:14]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:19],[00:30]] A: Could you give me a real-life example of someone who successfully changed fields for graduate school? I'd like to understand how common this is and what their experience was like.\n[[00:30],[00:46]] B: Absolutely! One student studied English but later earned a Master's in Public Health. She took some extra science courses first, then got accepted. Many people change fields when they discover new interests or career goals later in life.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: I see.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] B: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue based on Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n1. Speaker A starts by asking a clear, direct question: \"Can I get a graduate degree in a different field than my undergraduate major?\" and asks about the necessary steps.\n2. Speaker B provides a direct and reassuring answer: \"Yes, you can definitely pursue a different field for graduate studies.\" This directly addresses the core of A's question.\n3. Speaker A then makes a relevant follow-up request for a \"real-life example\" to better understand the process. This is a logical continuation of the topic.\n4. Speaker B responds perfectly by providing a specific, concrete example (English major to Public Health), explaining the steps taken (\"took some extra science courses\"), and generalizing the experience to reassure A (\"Many people change fields...\").\n\nThe dialogue is thematically coherent, with each turn logically following the previous one. The responses are relevant and directly address the questions asked.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to analyze the interactional fluency, specifically looking for extended overlaps and long pauses.\n\n**Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\n1. **Pauses:** There is a 2-second pause between Speaker A's first turn (ends at [00:09]) and Speaker B's response (starts at [00:11]). This is a natural and acceptable pause in conversation, not a long or awkward one.\n2. **Overlaps:** There is a minor, 1-second overlap where Speaker A's second turn (starts at [00:19]) begins just before Speaker B's first turn finishes (ends at [00:20]). This type of brief overlap is common in natural, enthusiastic conversation and is not disruptive. It is not an \"extended overlap.\"\n3. **Internal Utterances:** Speaker B has several backchannel-like utterances (\"Mhm,\" \"Uh huh,\" \"I see,\" etc.) that overlap with their own main sentences. While this is highly unnatural for a single speaker, it does not disrupt the turn-taking flow *between* Speaker A and Speaker B. The core interaction remains fluid without extended overlaps or long pauses between the speakers.\n\nBased on the specific criteria of evaluating \"extended overlaps\" and \"long pauses,\" the interactional fluency is acceptable.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/135",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:07]] A: Can you explain why machine learning is so important for artificial intelligence? I'm curious about how these two fields are connected.\n[[00:08],[00:16]] B: Machine learning is the heart of modern AI. It lets computers learn from data without being\n[[00:10],[00:11]] B: Really.\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: Really.\n[[00:15],[00:23]] A: That sounds fascinating! Could you give me a specific example of how machine learning helps in healthcare? I'd love to understand real-world applications.\n[[00:24],[00:37]] B: Sure! Machine learning helps doctors analyze medical scans faster and more accurately. It can spot early signs of diseases like cancer in X-rays or MRIs that humans might miss.\n[[00:28],[00:29]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:30],[00:31]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:32],[00:33]] B: Uh huh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue based on Response Relevance.\n\n1. **A's first turn to B's first turn:** A asks for an explanation of the connection between machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI). B responds directly by stating that ML is the \"heart of modern AI\" and explaining that it allows computers to learn from data. This is a relevant and coherent answer.\n2. **B's first turn to A's second turn:** A acknowledges B's explanation (\"That sounds fascinating!\") and then builds upon it by asking for a specific, real-world example in healthcare. This is a logical and topically coherent follow-up question.\n3. **A's second turn to B's second turn:** B responds to the request for a healthcare example by providing a clear and specific application: analyzing medical scans to detect diseases. This directly answers A's question.\n\nThe conversation flows logically from a general question to a specific example. Each response is directly relevant to the preceding turn, maintaining topic coherence throughout.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue based on Interactional Fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses between turns:**\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's first turn `[00:07]` and B's response `[00:08]`. This is a natural and brief pause.\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's second turn `[00:23]` and B's response `[00:24]`. This is also a natural and brief pause.\n * There are no prolonged or awkward silences in the conversation.\n\n2. **Overlaps:**\n * The transcript shows several instances of Speaker B uttering short phrases (\"Really.\", \"Mm hmm.\", \"Hmm.\", \"Uh huh.\") during their own main speaking turns. For example, \"Really.\" `[00:10]` occurs while B is speaking from `[00:08]` to `[00:16]`.\n * These are not overlaps *between speakers*. They are self-interruptions or fillers from Speaker B. They do not disrupt the turn-taking between A and B. A is able to complete their turn, and B is able to complete theirs without being cut off by A.\n * Since there are no instances of both speakers trying to talk over each other for an extended period, the interactional fluency is not negatively impacted. The turn-taking is clean and smooth.\n\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent fluency with natural turn-taking, no long pauses, and no disruptive overlaps between speakers.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/135",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: I am planning a trip in Cambridge,\n[[00:01],[00:03]] B: How can I help you today?\n[[00:04],[00:10]] A: I need to know what museums are in the area. Can you suggest one and let me know what area it is in please?\n[[00:06],[00:07]] A: Uh.\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: Is there a location preference?\n[[00:13],[00:17]] A: I don't care what area it is. I was hoping you could make a recommendation.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] A: Really.\n[[00:19],[00:23]] B: What about the Byard Art museum in the south part of town?\n[[00:21],[00:21]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:24],[00:29]] A: Sounds great! I also need a train leaving on Thursday from London Kings cross.\n[[00:26],[00:27]] A: Really.\n[[00:29],[00:38]] B: Okay, there are 10 trains that meet your criteria. Would you like to narrow it down further by departure time or any other specific requirements?\n[[00:32],[00:33]] B: Really.\n[[00:34],[00:34]] B: Sure.\n[[00:40],[00:45]] A: Sorry to interrupt, but can you tell me if these trains have Wi-Fi? I need to work during the trip.\n[[00:42],[00:43]] A: Um.\n[[00:47],[00:57]] B: Yes, most of the trains do have Wi-Fi. Now, back to your original question, would you like to narrow it down further by departure site or arrival time?\n[[00:50],[00:51]] B: Sure.\n[[00:52],[00:53]] B: Cool.\n[[00:58],[01:00]] A: I need to leave after 14:15\n[[01:01],[01:10]] B: TR5502 leaves at 15:17 and arrives 51 minutes later. How does that sound?\n[[01:05],[01:06]] B: Mhm.\n[[01:11],[01:13]] A: Yes. Please book of 3 people.\n[[01:13],[01:26]] B: Booking was successful, the total fee is 70.8 GBP payable at the station. Reference number is: XQWTI43A.\n[[01:27],[01:31]] A: Thank you for all your help. I really appreciate it.\n[[01:32],[01:38]] B: You are very welcome. Enjoy your time at the museum. If you need anything else feel free to call again.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each turn from the agent (Speaker B) directly addresses the user's (Speaker A) requests or questions.\n- When A asks for a museum recommendation, B first asks a clarifying question about location preference ([[00:11],[00:12]]) and then provides a specific, relevant suggestion when A clarifies they have no preference ([[00:19],[00:23]]).\n- When A switches topics to booking a train, B provides the number of available options and asks a logical follow-up question to narrow the search ([[00:29],[00:38]]).\n- B handles A's interruption about Wi-Fi effectively by answering the question directly and then smoothly returning to the previous topic ([[00:47],[00:57]]).\n- The rest of the interaction proceeds logically, with B providing train details, confirming the booking, and providing a reference number as requested.\n- The conversation is coherent and all responses are logically consistent with the user's goals.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- **Pauses:** The pauses between speaker turns are consistently short (1-2 seconds), which is natural and indicates a smooth conversational flow. There are no prolonged or awkward silences that would disrupt the interaction. For example, the 1-second pause between [[01:00]] and [[01:01]] is perfectly normal.\n- **Overlaps:** There is a minor overlap at the very beginning ([[00:01],[00:02]]), but it is brief and typical of a natural conversation opening. It does not hinder understanding. Subsequent turn transitions are clean and well-timed, with some having no pause at all (e.g., at [[00:29]] and [[01:13]]), which contributes to a fluid and efficient exchange. The various filler words (\"Uh\", \"Really\", \"Mhm\") are contained within a single speaker's turn and do not constitute disruptive overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/135",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: That orchard sounds absolutely magical! Could you describe what makes the colors of the fruit trees so special during different seasons? I'm curious how the orchard changes throughout the year.\n[[00:12],[00:24]] B: The orchard transforms beautifully with each season, offering a new palette of colors. In spring, delicate pink and white blossoms cover the trees like\n[[00:16],[00:16]] B: Uh.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Right.\n[[00:24],[00:35]] A: Your descriptions make me feel like I'm right there in the orchard! Can you tell me more about how the air smells during each season? I'd love to know how the scents change from spring to winter.\n[[00:36],[01:07]] B: The orchard's scents shift wonderfully with the seasons. In spring, the air is sweet with fragrant blossoms and fresh earth. Summer brings warm, sugary notes of ripening fruit mixed with sun-warmed grass. Autumn smells richest—juicy apples, spiced pears, and fallen leaves. Even winter has its own crisp, clean scent of frost and woodsmoke. Every season fills the air with its own special perfume.\n[[00:45],[00:46]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:47],[00:48]] B: Really.\n[[00:49],[00:50]] B: Right.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance and interactional fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n1. **A's first turn [[00:00],[00:11]]**: Asks about the colors of the fruit trees in different seasons.\n2. **B's first turn [[00:12],[00:24]]**: Begins to answer the question directly by describing the \"delicate pink and white blossoms\" of spring. The response is perfectly relevant to the question.\n3. **A's second turn [[00:24],[00:35]]**: Acknowledges B's description and asks a logical follow-up question about the scents of the orchard during different seasons. This maintains the topic coherence.\n4. **B's second turn [[00:36],[01:07]]**: Provides a detailed, season-by-season description of the orchard's smells, directly and comprehensively answering A's question.\n\nThe dialogue is thematically coherent and logically consistent. Each response directly addresses the preceding question or comment.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to analyze the interactional fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\n1. **Pauses between turns:**\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's first turn and B's response ([[00:11],[00:12]]). This is a natural turn-taking gap.\n * There is no pause between B's first turn and A's response ([[00:24],[00:24]]). The transition is immediate.\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's second turn and B's response ([[00:35],[00:36]]). This is also natural.\n * There are no prolonged pauses that would disrupt the conversational flow.\n\n2. **Overlaps:**\n * The transcript shows several short utterances from speaker B ([[00:16],[00:16]], [[00:17],[00:18]], etc.) that occur *during* their own speaking turns. These are not overlaps with speaker A. They function as very brief self-interruptions or fillers.\n * Since there are no instances of speakers talking over each other for an extended period, the interaction is free from disruptive overlaps.\n\nThe turn-taking is smooth and natural, with no harmful pauses or overlaps between speakers.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/135",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: That's really helpful to understand the stylistic differences, but could you give me some more modern examples from recent books where authors use metaphors and similes effectively?\n[[00:11],[00:24]] B: Absolutely! In \"The Hunger Games,\" Suzanne Collins writes, \"Hope is the only thing stronger than fear,\" which is a powerful metaphor. For a simile,\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Uh.\n[[00:23],[00:35]] A: I love those examples! But before you continue, could you explain how metaphors and similes help readers connect emotionally with the story compared to just stating things plainly?\n[[00:35],[00:54]] B: Great question! Metaphors and similes create vivid pictures in the reader's mind, making emotions feel real. Instead of saying \"she was sad,\" a writer might say, \"Her heart was a heavy stone,\" which makes you *feel* the sadness. Similes work\n[[00:41],[00:42]] B: Um.\n[[00:43],[00:43]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:44],[00:46]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:53],[01:04]] A: That makes so much sense! But what about in poetry—do poets use metaphors and similes differently than novelists, or are the rules pretty much the same across all writing?\n[[01:04],[01:19]] B: Poets often push metaphors and similes further, making them more imaginative. In Maya Angelou's poem, she writes, \"You may shoot me with your words,\" turning harsh speech into a metaphor for\n[[01:09],[01:09]] B: I see.\n[[01:10],[01:11]] B: That's cool.\n[[01:12],[01:13]] B: Cool.\n[[01:19],[01:27]] A: Got it! One last thing—when I'm writing my own stories, how can I tell if I should use a metaphor or a simile to make my descriptions stronger?\n[[01:27],[01:48]] B: Think about how direct you want the comparison to feel. If you want intensity, go for a metaphor—like saying, \"Time is a thief.\" If you want a softer touch, use a simile—\"Time slips away like sand through fingers.\" Try both and see which fits the mood of your scene better! Both can make your writing pop.\n[[01:33],[01:35]] B: Uh huh.\n[[01:36],[01:37]] B: I see.\n[[01:38],[01:39]] B: Cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and coherence of the dialogue.\n- Speaker A starts by asking for modern examples of metaphors and similes.\n- Speaker B begins to answer by providing an example from \"The Hunger Games.\"\n- Speaker A then interrupts to ask a related but different question about the emotional impact of these literary devices.\n- Speaker B pivots smoothly and answers this new question effectively.\n- Speaker A then asks about the difference in usage between poetry and novels.\n- Speaker B answers this question clearly with an example.\n- Speaker A's final question is about practical application in their own writing.\n- Speaker B gives a helpful, direct answer.\n\nThroughout the dialogue, Speaker B's responses are always directly relevant to Speaker A's questions, even when A changes the topic. The conversation maintains a coherent focus on metaphors and similes, exploring different facets of the topic. The progression is logical and easy to follow. Therefore, the response relevance is excellent.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, specifically looking for extended overlaps and long pauses.\n\n- **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between turns. The transition from one speaker to the next is immediate, indicating a fast-paced and engaged conversation. For example, when A finishes at [00:10], B starts at [00:11]. In several other instances, the next speaker begins at the exact moment the previous one finishes.\n\n- **Overlaps:**\n - `[[00:23],[00:24]]`: Speaker A begins speaking one second before Speaker B finishes. This is a very brief overlap, functioning as a natural interruption from an engaged participant who has another question.\n - `[[00:53],[00:54]]`: A similar one-second overlap occurs here, where A interrupts B. Again, this is very short and typical of natural, enthusiastic conversation, not a disruptive or extended overlap.\n - The other annotations for Speaker B (e.g., \"Uh,\" \"Mhm,\" \"I see\") are self-contained fillers or hesitations within B's own speaking turns, not overlaps with Speaker A.\n\nThe interaction is very fluid. There are no awkward silences or instances where speakers talk over each other for a prolonged period. The brief interruptions are handled smoothly and feel natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/136",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: I can't believe it! You actually won the car!\n[[00:03],[00:08]] B: I know! I can't believe it either! I'm so exci-\n[[00:05],[00:06]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:07],[00:13]] A: Wait, before you finish, how did you even find out? Did they call you, or was it an email?\n[[00:10],[00:11]] A: Uh.\n[[00:15],[00:25]] B: They called me! I was in the middle of a meeting, and when I saw the number, I almost didn't pick up. But then, I thought it might be important, so I did, and that's when they told me I won!\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:20],[00:20]] B: Sure.\n[[00:27],[00:33]] A: You deserve it, after all the hard work you've put in. You're going to make an amazing salesperson.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] A: Really.\n[[00:34],[00:37]] B: Thank you, Brocha. That means a lot coming from you.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: Uh.\n[[00:39],[00:41]] A: I'm just happy that I could help you out.\n[[00:43],[00:47]] B: Well, I couldn't have done it without your sup- without your support and encouragement.\n[[00:44],[00:46]] B: Really.\n[[00:49],[00:54]] A: You know what? Let's not even finish that sentence. We need to go celebrate right now!\n[[00:51],[00:52]] A: Cool.\n[[00:56],[00:59]] B: Anytime, Lizette. Now let's go celebrate!",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation starts with speaker A's excitement about speaker B winning a car. B's response confirms this and shares the excitement. A then asks a relevant question about how B found out. B answers this question with a detailed and relevant story. The conversation then transitions smoothly to A congratulating B and expressing that they deserve it, which is a supportive and thematically consistent turn. The speakers exchange words of appreciation, which logically follows from the supportive comments. The dialogue concludes with a natural suggestion to celebrate the good news. Every turn is a logical and coherent response to the previous one, maintaining a consistent and engaging topic throughout.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long, disruptive pauses between turns; the pauses are all 1-2 seconds, which is typical for natural conversation. There is one noticeable overlap from [00:07] to [00:08] where speaker A excitedly interrupts speaker B. However, this is handled naturally, as A explicitly says, \"Wait, before you finish,\" acknowledging the interruption. B yields the floor, and the conversation continues smoothly. This type of brief, motivated overlap is common in excited, natural speech and does not harm the fluency. Other minor overlaps are single-word filler utterances (\"Ummm,\" \"Really,\" \"Uh\") that function as backchannels or thinking sounds and do not disrupt the flow of the main speaker's turn. Overall, the turn-taking is smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/137",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: This is the one. I love it. It's perfect.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:05],[00:08]] B: I'm so glad you found something you like. It looks great on you.\n[[00:06],[00:07]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:09],[00:15]] A: Thank you. I feel really good in it. Like myself,\n[[00:12],[00:13]] A: Mm.\n[[00:14],[00:22]] B: Sorry to jump in, but I just have to ask—do you have the right shoes to go with it? Sometimes that can really complete the look.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Uh.\n[[00:23],[00:34]] A: Oh, good point! I do have a pair that might work, but I was going to mention that this dress is me. I'm tired of pretending to be someone I'm not. This dress is exactly what I was looking for.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:35],[00:39]] B: I can see that. You have a beautiful smile.\n[[00:37],[00:37]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:41],[00:45]] A: Thank you. I'm so happy I found this dress. It's exactly what I was looking for.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:47],[00:52]] B: We're glad we could help you find it. Enjoy your night out in your new dress!\n[[00:49],[00:50]] B: That's cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation follows a logical and coherent path, starting with speaker A expressing excitement about finding a perfect dress. Speaker B's responses are consistently supportive and on-topic, first affirming A's choice (\"It looks great on you\") and then asking a relevant follow-up question about shoes. When A pivots back to the emotional significance of the dress (\"this dress is me\"), B responds with empathy and a compliment (\"I can see that. You have a beautiful smile\"). The conversation concludes naturally with B wishing A well. Each turn is a logical and appropriate reaction to the previous one, maintaining a consistent and coherent theme throughout.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, disruptive pauses between turns; the gaps are all within a natural conversational rhythm (1-2 seconds). There is a notable overlap between [[00:14]] and [[00:15]] where B begins speaking before A has completely finished. However, this is handled very naturally, as B explicitly acknowledges the interruption (\"Sorry to jump in...\"), which is a common feature of engaged and enthusiastic conversation rather than a flaw. Other minor overlaps are self-overlaps (e.g., filler words like \"Hmm\" or \"Uh huh\" within a speaker's own turn), which do not disrupt the flow. Overall, the interaction is smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/137",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:08]] A: I really love this stovetop Chicken Divan recipe you shared! Could you tell me how long it takes to prepare and cook this delicious dish from start to finish?\n[[00:08],[00:13]] B: The stovetop version takes about 30 minutes total. You'll\n[[00:10],[00:11]] B: Sure.\n[[00:12],[00:18]] A: Wait, could you break that down a little more? Like, what exactly takes 10 minutes to prep, and what happens during the 20 minutes of cooking?\n[[00:19],[00:26]] B: Sure! The 10 minutes is for chopping chicken, broccoli, and mixing the sauce. Then the\n[[00:21],[00:22]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:23],[00:23]] B: Um.\n[[00:25],[00:35]] A: That sounds perfect for a weeknight meal! Since you mentioned the Hatch green chilies earlier, could you suggest some other tasty ingredients I could use if I don't have those available?\n[[00:36],[00:38]] B: Absolutely! Instead of\n[[00:37],[00:44]] A: Actually, before we get to substitutes, how spicy are Hatch chilies compared to something like jalapeños?\n[[00:44],[00:57]] B: Hatch chilies are milder than jalapeños—more smoky than super hot. But if you don't have them, roasted red peppers add sweetness, or mushrooms give an earthy flavor. Each works great!\n[[00:48],[00:49]] B: Right.\n[[00:50],[00:51]] B: Um.\n[[00:51],[00:53]] B: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue based on Response Relevance.\n\n1. **Turn 1 (A->B):** A asks for the total prep and cook time for a recipe.\n2. **Turn 2 (B->A):** B gives the total time (30 minutes) and begins to break it down. This is a direct and relevant answer.\n3. **Turn 3 (A->B):** A interrupts to ask for a more specific breakdown of the prep and cook times. This is a relevant follow-up question that clarifies the initial request.\n4. **Turn 4 (B->A):** B starts to provide the specific breakdown as requested. The response is coherent and directly addresses A's question.\n5. **Turn 5 (A->B):** A interrupts again, acknowledging the previous answer (\"That sounds perfect...\") and then pivots to a related question about ingredient substitutes for Hatch chilies. The topic shift is logical within the context of discussing a recipe.\n6. **Turn 6 (B->A):** B begins to answer the question about substitutes.\n7. **Turn 7 (A->B):** A interrupts a third time to ask a clarifying question about the spiciness of Hatch chilies before hearing the substitutes. This is also a relevant, on-topic question.\n8. **Turn 8 (B->A):** B provides an excellent response. It first answers the most recent question about spiciness (\"Hatch chilies are milder than jalapeños...\") and then seamlessly transitions back to answer the previous, interrupted question about substitutes (\"But if you don't have them, roasted red peppers... or mushrooms...\").\n\n**Conclusion:** Throughout the dialogue, all responses are logically consistent and maintain topic coherence. Speaker B is particularly effective at managing the conversation, answering A's rapid-fire questions and even remembering to answer a previously asked question after being interrupted. The relevance is excellent.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue based on Interactional Fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Long Pauses:** I will check the timestamps for any significant gaps between turns.\n * [[00:08],[00:08]]: No pause.\n * [[00:18],[00:19]]: 1-second pause. This is a normal conversational gap.\n * [[00:35],[00:36]]: 1-second pause. This is also normal.\n * [[00:44],[00:44]]: No pause.\n * **Conclusion:** There are no long, harmful pauses in the dialogue.\n\n2. **Extended Overlaps:** I will check the timestamps for overlapping speech.\n * `[00:12],[00:13]`: A speaks over B for about a second. This is an interruption where A cuts B off to ask a more specific question.\n * `[00:25],[00:26]`: A speaks over B for about a second. This is another clear interruption where A changes the topic.\n * `[00:37],[00:38]`: A speaks over B for about a second. This is a third interruption where A asks a clarifying question.\n * The other overlaps (`[00:10],[00:11]`, `[00:21],[00:22]`, etc.) are brief backchannels from B (\"Sure,\" \"Mhm,\" \"Right\"). These are signs of active listening and are a feature of natural, fluent conversation, not a flaw.\n\n**Conclusion:** Speaker A frequently interrupts Speaker B, leading to several extended overlaps where A cuts B off mid-sentence. While frequent interruptions can be harmful to fluency, Speaker B handles them gracefully, and the conversation never breaks down. It feels like a natural, albeit fast-paced and slightly impatient, interaction. The absence of long pauses and the natural backchanneling contribute positively to the fluency. Despite A's interruptions, the interaction as a whole remains effective and fluid.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/138",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:08]] A: That sounds like a great start, but could you give me some more specific examples of how to phrase these ideas in a way that would really resonate with a young person?\n[[00:09],[00:17]] B: Sure! For example, you could say something like \"I love watching you grow into such an amazing person.\" Then maybe add\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:16],[00:24]] A: Yes please, and while we're on that topic, how can I make sure the letter doesn't sound too preachy or like I'm giving them instructions about their life choices?\n[[00:25],[00:35]] B: Great question! The key is to focus on feelings rather than advice. Instead of saying \"You should do this,\" try \"I hope you find work that makes you\n[[00:28],[00:29]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:30],[00:31]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:35],[00:44]] A: That makes perfect sense, but could you help me strike the right balance between being encouraging while also acknowledging that life can be challenging sometimes?\n[[00:44],[01:00]] B: Absolutely! You might say something like \"Life won't always be easy, but I know you're strong enough to handle it.\" Then follow with \"And remember, you never have to face anything alone - I'm always here for you.\" That keeps it real but supportive.\n[[00:49],[00:50]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:51],[00:51]] B: Right.\n[[00:52],[00:53]] B: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and coherence of the dialogue.\n\n1. **A's first turn [[00:00],[00:08]]**: A asks for specific phrasing examples for a young person.\n2. **B's first turn [[00:09],[00:17]]**: B provides a direct example (\"I love watching you grow into such an amazing person...\"), which is perfectly relevant.\n3. **A's second turn [[00:16],[00:24]]**: A asks a follow-up question on how to avoid sounding preachy. This is a logical continuation of the topic.\n4. **B's second turn [[00:25],[00:35]]**: B directly addresses this by suggesting a focus on \"feelings rather than advice\" and provides a contrasting example. This is highly relevant and helpful.\n5. **A's third turn [[00:35],[00:44]]**: A asks another clarifying question about balancing encouragement with acknowledging life's challenges. This is also a coherent and logical progression of the conversation.\n6. **B's third turn [[00:44],[01:00]]**: B gives a concrete example that perfectly illustrates this balance (\"Life won't always be easy, but...\").\n\nThe entire conversation is focused on a single topic (writing an encouraging letter). Each turn logically follows the previous one, with B's responses directly and effectively answering A's questions. The dialogue demonstrates excellent topic coherence and logical consistency.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to analyze the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses**:\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's first turn ending at [00:08] and B's turn starting at [00:09]. This is a natural turn-taking gap.\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's second turn ending at [00:24] and B's turn starting at [00:25]. This is also a normal pause.\n * There are no other significant pauses between turns. The flow is smooth.\n\n2. **Overlaps**:\n * There is a 1-second overlap between B's turn ending at [00:17] and A's turn starting at [00:16]. A begins speaking just as B is finishing a thought. This is a brief, common type of overlap that often indicates engagement and is not disruptive.\n * The other annotations for Speaker B (e.g., \"Hmm\", \"Ummm\", \"That's cool\") occur *during* B's own speaking turns. They are self-interjections or fillers, not overlaps with Speaker A. They don't interrupt the flow of the conversation between the two speakers.\n\nConclusion: The dialogue has no long pauses or disruptive, extended overlaps. The turn-taking is smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/138",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: Ace, what's up? I got your text and I'm starting to get a little worried.\n[[00:02],[00:02]] A: Really.\n[[00:04],[00:10]] B: Hey, don't worry. It's nothing bad. I just wanted to talk to you about something that's been on my mind.\n[[00:07],[00:08]] B: Cool.\n[[00:10],[00:14]] A: Okay, now I'm really worried. What is it?\n[[00:12],[00:12]] A: Mm.\n[[00:14],[00:24]] B: It's just that...I feel like we're growing apart. We don't hang out as much as we used to and when we do, it feels like we have nothing to talk about\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Really.\n[[00:18],[00:20]] B: Right.\n[[00:23],[00:29]] A: Do you think it's because we've been focusing too much on our individual goals and not enough on our friendship?\n[[00:25],[00:26]] A: Right.\n[[00:30],[00:40]] B: Maybe that's part of it, but I think there's more to it than that. And I'm not sure if you feel the same way, but I miss the old days when things were simpler and we were always together.\n[[00:33],[00:34]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:35],[00:37]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:41],[01:08]] A: Oh Ace, of course I feel the same way! This past year has been so crazy and it feels like everything has changed so much between us. But I guess that's just how life is sometimes. People change and grow apart and sometimes it feels like there's nothing you can do about it except hold on to the memories of better times and hope that someday things will go back to being how they were when we didn't have so many responsibilities pulling us in different directions.\n[[00:49],[00:50]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:51],[00:52]] A: That's cool.\n[[01:08],[01:17]] B: I really appreciate you saying that. Do you think there's anything specific we can do to reconnect, maybe plan regular hangouts or activities we both enjoy?\n[[01:17],[01:25]] A: Yeah...I guess you're right. Thanks for understanding, Sandra. Just talking about this with you has made me feel a lot better already.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the provided dialogue transcript for response relevance and interactional fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n- The conversation begins with A expressing worry, prompted by a text from B.\n- B's response at [00:04] directly addresses A's worry (\"don't worry\") and then introduces the topic of conversation (\"something that's been on my mind\"), which is a logical and coherent progression.\n- A's response at [00:10] (\"Okay, now I'm really worried. What is it?\") is a natural reaction to B's vague introduction, keeping the topic coherent.\n- B's explanation at [00:14] about feeling like they are growing apart is a direct and relevant answer to A's question.\n- A's question at [00:23] (\"Do you think it's because we've been focusing too much on our individual goals...\") is a highly relevant and thoughtful contribution, showing active listening and an attempt to understand the root cause.\n- B's response at [00:30] builds on A's suggestion (\"Maybe that's part of it\") and adds more emotional depth by mentioning nostalgia for the past. This maintains topic coherence perfectly.\n- A's long monologue at [00:41] is a direct and empathetic response to B's feelings, confirming that they feel the same way. This is a key moment in the conversation and is perfectly relevant.\n- B's turn at [01:08] logically moves the conversation from expressing feelings to finding a solution (\"Do you think there's anything specific we can do to reconnect...\").\n- A's final response at [01:17] agrees with the need for a solution (\"Yeah...I guess you're right\") and provides a positive conclusion to the difficult conversation.\n\nOverall, the dialogue is exceptionally relevant and coherent. Each turn logically follows the previous one, and the speakers work together to explore a difficult emotional topic constructively.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, focusing on extended overlaps and long pauses.\n\n**Pause Analysis:**\n- [00:04] A ends, [00:04] B starts. (0s pause) - Smooth transition.\n- [00:10] B ends, [00:10] A starts. (0s pause) - Smooth transition.\n- [00:14] A ends, [00:14] B starts. (0s pause) - Smooth transition.\n- [00:29] A ends, [00:30] B starts. (1s pause) - A brief, natural pause.\n- [00:40] B ends, [00:41] A starts. (1s pause) - A brief, natural pause before a longer turn.\n- [01:08] A ends, [01:08] B starts. (0s pause) - Smooth transition.\n- [01:17] B ends, [01:17] A starts. (0s pause) - Smooth transition.\nThere are no long or awkward pauses between speaker turns. The flow is natural and quick.\n\n**Overlap Analysis:**\n- There is one minor overlap between speakers: A starts speaking at [00:23] while B is finishing their turn at [00:24]. This one-second overlap is typical of engaged conversation and is not disruptive.\n- The transcript also lists many single-word utterances (e.g., \"Really,\" \"Cool,\" \"Right\") that overlap with the speaker's own main utterance. These are not interactional overlaps (i.e., two people talking over each other) but rather self-interjections or fillers. They are characteristic of natural speech and do not harm the fluency of the interaction.\nThere are no extended or harmful overlaps where speakers interrupt or talk over each other for a prolonged period.\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth, pauses are minimal and natural, and there are no disruptive overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/139",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:08]] A: That explanation helps, but could you give me more specific examples of how potential energy converts to kinetic energy in household items we use every day?\n[[00:09],[00:21]] B: Sure! Think about a toaster - when you push the lever down, you're storing potential energy in the spring. When it pops up, that energy becomes kinetic as the toast moves. Another great\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: Cool.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: I see.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:20],[00:30]] A: Wait, before you continue, could you explain why the height affects the amount of potential energy so much in these examples? I notice you mentioned that with both the book and the clock.\n[[00:31],[00:42]] B: Absolutely! Height matters because gravity pulls stronger on objects higher up. The farther something can fall, the more speed it can gain - that's why a book on a high shelf has more\n[[00:37],[00:37]] B: Really.\n[[00:42],[00:50]] A: That makes perfect sense now! Could you tell me about some safety considerations we should keep in mind regarding these energy conversions in daily life?\n[[00:50],[01:05]] B: Definitely! With potential energy, be careful with heavy objects placed high up - like bookshelves or stacked boxes. If they fall, all that stored energy becomes dangerous kinetic energy. Same with springs in devices - sudden releases\n[[00:55],[00:56]] B: I see.\n[[00:57],[00:58]] B: I see.\n[[00:59],[00:59]] B: Really.\n[[01:05],[01:13]] A: One last thing - how does understanding these energy types help us design better machines or improve energy efficiency in our homes?\n[[01:14],[01:37]] B: Great question! Engineers use these principles everywhere. For example, hydroelectric dams store water's potential energy high up, then convert it to kinetic energy to make electricity. In homes, understanding this helps design better insulation to prevent energy loss, or position solar panels at angles that capture the most energy from sunlight's movement.\n[[01:21],[01:21]] B: Uh.\n[[01:22],[01:23]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[01:24],[01:25]] B: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue based on Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n1. **A's first question ([00:00]-[00:08])** asks for specific examples of potential to kinetic energy conversion in household items.\n2. **B's response ([00:09]-[00:21])** provides a perfect example with the toaster, directly answering the question. The response is relevant and coherent.\n3. **A's second question ([00:20]-[00:30])** is a relevant follow-up, asking for clarification on a concept mentioned in the examples. This shows A is engaged and the conversation is building logically.\n4. **B's response ([00:31]-[00:42])** directly explains the relationship between height and potential energy due to gravity. This is a clear, logical, and relevant answer.\n5. **A's third question ([00:42]-[00:50])** logically transitions the topic to safety considerations, a practical application of the concepts discussed. The topic shift is smooth and coherent.\n6. **B's response ([00:50]-[01:05])** provides relevant safety examples, directly answering A's question.\n7. **A's final question ([01:05]-[01:13])** broadens the scope to engineering and efficiency, which is a logical conclusion to the conversation.\n8. **B's final response ([01:14]-[01:37])** gives excellent, relevant examples like hydroelectric dams and home design.\n\nOverall, the responses are consistently on-topic, logical, and build upon each other coherently. The relevance is excellent.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue's Interactional Fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pause Analysis:**\n* [00:08]-[00:09]: 1-second pause. This is a natural gap for turn-taking.\n* [00:30]-[00:31]: 1-second pause. Also natural.\n* [01:13]-[01:14]: 1-second pause. Again, a normal turn-taking gap.\nThere are no prolonged or awkward pauses between the speakers' main turns.\n\n**Overlap Analysis:**\n* The transcript shows numerous instances of speaker B making short utterances (`Cool`, `I see`, `Really`, `Mm hmm`) while B is also delivering a longer response. This is a transcription artifact, but I must evaluate it as presented. These are very brief, self-overlaps. They do not disrupt the flow of B's main sentence or prevent A from understanding.\n* There is one overlap between A and B from [00:20] to [00:21]. Speaker A interrupts B to ask a clarifying question. This is a very common and natural feature of interactive dialogue and is not extended. It lasts only one second.\n\n**Conclusion:** According to the note, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" In this transcript, all pauses are short and natural. All overlaps are brief and do not disrupt the conversation's flow. Therefore, the interactional fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/139",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: Oh my god, I'm so sorry. I didn't mean to knock into your table.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:04],[00:06]] B: It's okay, accidents happen.\n[[00:07],[00:10]] A: I feel terrible. Let me help you\n[[00:08],[00:09]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:10],[00:16]] B: Actually, I have a different opinion. I think it would be better if you could help, especially since it's a bit of a mess.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: I see.\n[[00:16],[00:22]] A: No, it's fine. I can handle it. Are you sure you don't mind if I stay and help you organize everything?\n[[00:18],[00:19]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:22],[00:25]] B: I'm positive. But thank you for offering.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the provided dialogue transcript.\n\n**Analysis of Response Relevance:**\n1. The dialogue begins with Speaker A apologizing for an accident ([[00:00],[00:04]]).\n2. Speaker B accepts the apology and downplays the incident ([[00:04],[00:06]]). This is a logical and socially appropriate response.\n3. Speaker A insists on helping ([[00:07],[00:10]]), which is a coherent follow-up to the apology.\n4. Speaker B agrees to the help ([[00:10],[00:16]]). The phrase \"I have a different opinion\" is slightly unusual but can be interpreted as B changing their initial thought of declining the help.\n5. Speaker A then re-confirms if B is truly okay with the help ([[00:16],[00:22]]). This shows consideration and politeness.\n6. Speaker B confirms they are sure ([[00:22],[00:25]]).\n\nOverall, the conversation follows a logical and coherent path. The topic is maintained throughout, and each turn is a relevant response to the previous one, showing a clear and consistent interaction. The short interjections like \"That's cool\" or \"Uh huh\" are likely filler words and don't detract from the main conversation's relevance.\n\n\n\n**Analysis of Interactional Fluency:**\n1. **Pauses:** There are no prolonged pauses between turns. The transition from B's turn at [00:06] to A's turn at [00:07] is only one second, which is a natural gap in conversation. Other transitions are immediate.\n2. **Overlaps:** The transcript shows several instances of overlapping speech ([[00:01],[00:02]], [[00:08],[00:09]], [[00:13],[00:14]], [[00:18],[00:19]]). However, all of these overlaps are extremely brief (one second long). They appear to be minor interjections or fillers spoken by the main speaker during their own turn (e.g., \"Uh huh\", \"I see\"). In natural speech, these function as hesitations or discourse markers and are not disruptive. They do not prevent the other speaker from taking their turn or obscure the meaning of the utterances. The flow of the conversation remains smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/139",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:12]] A: I'm really interested in learning more about how often Holy Communion happens at New Life Church and why it's such a central part of your worship services. Could you break it down for me in simple terms that are easy to understand?\n[[00:12],[00:19]] B: At New Life, we celebrate Holy Communion every single Sunday during both of\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Uh.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:19],[00:31]] A: Wait, before you go on, could you explain why you do it every week? Most churches I've visited only do monthly communion, so I'm curious what makes weekly communion so important to your church?\n[[00:32],[00:43]] B: That's a great question! We believe weekly communion keeps Jesus' sacrifice fresh in our hearts and minds. It helps us stay connected to God and each other\n[[00:37],[00:39]] B: Sure.\n[[00:43],[00:53]] A: That makes sense, but could you tell me more about what makes New Life's worship experience different from other churches around here? What would I notice if I visited for the first time?\n[[00:54],[00:58]] B: You'd notice we blend traditional and modern worship\n[[00:56],[00:57]] B: Um.\n[[00:58],[01:06]] A: Sorry to interrupt, but when you say \"blend styles,\" could you give me some specific examples of what that looks like during an actual service?\n[[01:07],[01:29]] B: Of course! You'll hear both classic hymns and contemporary worship songs, see both formal prayers and casual conversations with God, and experience the sacraments alongside practical Bible teaching that applies to daily life. It's all about creating a space where everyone feels comfortable connecting with God.\n[[01:13],[01:14]] B: Uh.\n[[01:15],[01:16]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[01:16],[01:17]] B: Cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B consistently provides direct and logical answers to Speaker A's questions. For example, when A asks why communion is weekly ([00:19]), B provides a clear theological reason ([00:32]). When A asks for specific examples of blended worship styles ([00:58]), B follows up with a detailed list of examples, such as classic hymns with contemporary songs and formal prayers with casual conversations ([01:07]). The conversation progresses coherently, with each turn logically following the previous one. Speaker A's interruptions are not off-topic but serve to seek deeper clarification on the current subject, which enhances the relevance and depth of the conversation.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is high. There are no prolonged or disruptive pauses between turns; the transitions are quick and natural, typically with a one-second gap at most (e.g., [00:31]-[00:32]). The overlaps that occur are brief interruptions from Speaker A, who is actively engaged and seeking clarification ([00:19], [00:58]). These are not instances of speakers talking over each other but rather a feature of a dynamic and engaged conversation. They do not disrupt the flow but rather redirect it effectively. The conversation feels natural and fluid throughout.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/140",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:12]] A: Could you explain why only Arab countries can join the Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa? I'm really curious about the specific reasons behind this membership requirement and how it benefits both regions.\n[[00:13],[00:21]] B: Well, the bank was actually created by Arab League members with a special purpose. It focuses on strengthening economic ties between\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Right.\n[[00:20],[00:32]] A: Wait, before you go on, could you clarify how this arrangement benefits African countries if they can't be members themselves? Doesn't that create some imbalance in the decision-making process?\n[[00:32],[00:42]] B: That's a great question! While African nations aren't members, they're the primary beneficiaries. The bank funds projects that\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: Right.\n[[00:37],[00:39]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:41],[00:52]] A: What kinds of development projects does this bank typically support in African countries? I'd love to hear some specific examples of their work and how they choose which projects to fund.\n[[00:52],[01:02]] B: They focus on three main areas - infrastructure, agriculture, and energy. For example, they might fund a new road network\n[[00:55],[00:56]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:57],[00:57]] B: Really.\n[[01:01],[01:11]] A: That sounds interesting, but could you tell me more about their energy projects? Are they focusing more on traditional energy sources or renewable options like solar and wind power?\n[[01:11],[01:22]] B: Actually, they're putting a lot of emphasis on renewable energy these days. Solar power projects are especially popular because Africa gets so much\n[[01:15],[01:16]] B: Ummm.\n[[01:17],[01:17]] B: Hmm.\n[[01:21],[01:31]] A: How does the bank decide which African countries get funding? Is there a specific application process or do they target certain nations based on development needs?\n[[01:31],[01:46]] B: Countries submit proposals through their governments, and the bank evaluates them based on several factors. They look at how much the project will help local communities and whether it's sustainable long-term. The neediest countries often get priority.\n[[01:35],[01:36]] B: Um.\n[[01:37],[01:38]] B: Sure.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue based on Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n1. A asks a specific question about the membership requirements of the Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa.\n2. B begins to answer by explaining the bank's origin and purpose, which is directly relevant.\n3. A interrupts with a follow-up question about how the arrangement benefits African nations, which is a logical and coherent clarification based on B's initial response.\n4. B directly answers A's clarifying question.\n5. A then asks for specific examples of projects, which is a natural progression of the conversation.\n6. B provides examples, staying on topic.\n7. A narrows the focus to energy projects, a sub-topic introduced by B, showing good listening and coherence.\n8. B answers the specific question about energy projects.\n9. A asks about the funding process, another logical question to understand the bank's operations.\n10. B provides a clear explanation of the process.\n\nThroughout the dialogue, the responses are consistently relevant, logical, and stay on the central topic. Each turn builds upon the previous one, creating a coherent and informative conversation.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to analyze the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pause Analysis:**\n- [[00:12],[00:13]]: A 1-second pause between speaker A finishing and speaker B starting. This is a normal, natural gap in conversation.\n- All other speaker transitions are immediate or have very brief, natural overlaps. There are no long, awkward pauses that would disrupt the flow.\n\n**Overlap Analysis:**\n- [[00:20],[00:21]]: A 1-second overlap where A begins to speak just before B finishes. This is a very common and natural type of interruption for clarification.\n- [[00:41],[00:42]]: A 1-second overlap. Again, a natural interruption to ask the next question.\n- [[01:01],[01:02]]: A 1-second overlap. A natural transition to a more specific question.\n- [[01:21],[01:22]]: A 1-second overlap. Another natural interruption to ask a follow-up question.\n\nThe numerous short utterances by speaker B (e.g., \"Right\", \"Yeah, yeah\", \"Ummm\") occur within their own speaking turns and function as conversational fillers or affirmations. They do not overlap with speaker A and are a normal part of spoken language. The overlaps that do occur between the two speakers are brief, functional, and contribute to a fast-paced, engaged conversational style rather than being disruptive. The overall fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/140",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: So, Niya, how have things been going since we last spoke?\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Right.\n[[00:04],[00:11]] B: Overall, I'd say things have been going pretty well. My anxiety has been manageable and I've been able to keep up with\n[[00:06],[00:07]] B: Mm.\n[[00:10],[00:16]] A: Sorry to interrupt, but how have you been managing your anxiety? Have you been using any specific techniques or strategies?\n[[00:13],[00:14]] A: Um.\n[[00:16],[00:31]] B: Yes, I've been practicing mindfulness exercises and journaling regularly. These methods have really helped me maintain focus and reduce stress. I was also going to mention that I've been keeping up with my responsibilities at work, which has been a big relief.\n[[00:21],[00:21]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:22],[00:23]] B: Really.\n[[00:24],[00:25]] B: Sure.\n[[00:31],[00:40]] A: That's wonderful to hear! It sounds like you've found some effective ways to cope. How has this impacted your day-to-day productivity?\n[[00:34],[00:35]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] A: Right.\n[[00:40],[00:46]] B: It's definitely improved. I feel more present and less overwhelmed, which makes it easier to get things done.\n[[00:42],[00:42]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A initiates the conversation by asking a general question about how Speaker B has been doing. Speaker B begins to answer, touching upon anxiety and work. Speaker A interrupts with a more specific, clarifying question about how B is managing the anxiety. This is a highly relevant follow-up. B answers this question directly and then smoothly transitions back to their original point about work responsibilities, maintaining topic coherence. A's subsequent question about productivity is a logical extension of the conversation. B's final response directly answers A's question. The entire exchange is logically consistent and stays on the central topic of B's well-being and coping strategies.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long, unnatural pauses between turns; the conversation flows smoothly and quickly. There is one notable overlap from [00:10] to [00:11] where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. However, A explicitly acknowledges this by saying, \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which mitigates the disruption. This kind of focused interruption is common in natural conversation and does not significantly harm the overall fluency. The other brief, single-word overlaps are either self-talk or backchannels, which are typical of natural, engaged dialogue and do not constitute a fluency problem.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/141",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:07]] A: What is the average commute time for people living in Oak Ridge, Tennessee? I'm curious how long it typically takes to get to work there.\n[[00:08],[00:15]] B: The average commute time in Oak Ridge is about 21 minutes according to recent\n[[00:10],[00:11]] B: Sure.\n[[00:12],[00:12]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:14],[00:22]] A: Does rush hour traffic in Oak Ridge make the commute much longer than usual? I'd like to know if delays are common during peak times.\n[[00:23],[00:38]] B: Like most cities, Oak Ridge does see some traffic during rush hour. While I don't have live updates, congestion can add extra time depending on your route. Checking traffic apps before leaving helps avoid surprises.\n[[00:27],[00:29]] B: Right.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Sure.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user's responses are directly relevant and coherent. In the first turn, A asks for the average commute time, and B provides a specific answer (21 minutes). In the second turn, A asks a follow-up question about rush hour, and B provides a relevant explanation about potential congestion and offers a helpful suggestion. The conversation follows a logical progression, and each response appropriately addresses the preceding question.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the gaps are consistently short and natural (1 second). There is one very brief, one-second overlap ([[00:14],[00:15]]) where A begins speaking just as B is finishing. This type of minor overlap is common in natural conversation and does not disrupt the flow. There are no extended or disruptive overlaps that would harm the quality of the interaction.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/141",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: Hey, do you think we'll ever be able to rebuild this city?\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Sure.\n[[00:03],[00:07]] B: I don't know. It seems like everything is\n[[00:05],[00:05]] B: Right.\n[[00:06],[00:11]] A: Destroyed, yeah, I know. But we have to try. We can't just give up.\n[[00:07],[00:09]] A: Sure.\n[[00:11],[00:19]] B: But what's the point? There's nothing left here that resembles our old lives, and it feels like we're just clinging to memories.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Mm.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Mm.\n[[00:19],[00:24]] A: The point is to start over. To build something new and better than before.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] A: Um.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] B: I don't know if that's possible.\n[[00:27],[00:34]] A: We have to believe it is. Otherwise, we might as well just give up now and lay down and die.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:30],[00:31]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:34],[00:37]] B: I don't know, Khaliq. I just don't know.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: I see.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation maintains a clear and consistent topic: the possibility and emotional difficulty of rebuilding a destroyed city. Speaker A consistently offers a hopeful and determined perspective, while Speaker B consistently expresses doubt and despair. Each turn logically follows the previous one. For instance, when B questions the point of rebuilding (`[[00:11],[00:19]]`), A directly addresses this by stating the point is to \"start over\" and \"build something new\" (`[[00:19],[00:24]]`). The emotional and logical progression of the argument is coherent and easy to follow.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no prolonged pauses between turns that would indicate a breakdown in the conversational flow. The pauses that do exist (e.g., between 00:24 and 00:25) are brief and natural. The overlaps are also natural and not disruptive. For example, from [[00:06],[00:07]], A overlaps B to finish B's sentence (\"...everything is / Destroyed...\"), which is a common feature of engaged, collaborative conversation. The short utterances like \"Sure,\" \"Mm,\" and \"Right\" act as backchannels or fillers, contributing to the naturalistic feel of the dialogue rather than hindering it. Overall, the turn-taking is smooth and seamless.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/143",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:14]] A: Could you explain in more detail how Fisher House specifically helped Will Reynolds and his family during his recovery? I'm particularly interested in knowing what kind of accommodations they provided and any emotional support services.\n[[00:15],[00:28]] B: Absolutely! Fisher House gave Will's family a fully furnished home just minutes from the hospital. They had private bedrooms, shared living spaces, and home-cooked meals - all\n[[00:22],[00:23]] B: Sure.\n[[00:27],[00:38]] A: That sounds incredibly helpful, but could you tell me more about how Fisher House supported Will's participation in the Warrior Games? Did they assist with training or travel arrangements too?\n[[00:39],[00:52]] B: Great question! While Fisher House mainly focuses on housing, their community helped Will stay motivated during rehab. Fellow residents cheered him on, and the stable home\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Really.\n[[00:45],[00:45]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:46],[00:47]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:51],[01:02]] A: Regarding Minie Curry's situation, how did Fisher House accommodate her needs during those nine months? Were there special services for caregivers like her dealing with long-term recovery cases?\n[[01:02],[01:13]] B: Fisher House understood caregivers need extra care too. Minie had counseling services, support groups, and even simple things like laundry\n[[01:05],[01:06]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[01:07],[01:09]] B: Sure.\n[[01:12],[01:21]] A: That vow renewal ceremony sounds beautiful - can you describe how Fisher House made that possible and what it meant to the couple after such a difficult journey?\n[[01:22],[01:40]] B: The staff transformed their common area into a wedding venue as a surprise! Volunteers handled decorations, photos, even a cake. For Minie and Anson, it symbolized hope after years of struggle - a joyful moment made possible because they had this supportive home.\n[[01:27],[01:28]] B: Hmm.\n[[01:29],[01:30]] B: Right.\n[[01:31],[01:32]] B: Mm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue based on Response Relevance. I will analyze each of speaker B's responses to speaker A's questions to check for logical consistency and topic coherence.\n\n1. **A's first question ([00:00]-[00:14]):** Asks about specific accommodations and emotional support provided by Fisher House to the Reynolds family.\n2. **B's first response ([00:15]-[00:28]):** Directly answers the question by describing the \"fully furnished home,\" \"private bedrooms,\" and \"home-cooked meals,\" which covers the accommodations. The description of a supportive home environment implicitly addresses the emotional support aspect. The response is highly relevant and coherent.\n3. **A's second question ([00:27]-[00:38]):** Asks how Fisher House supported Will's participation in the Warrior Games, specifically regarding training or travel.\n4. **B's second response ([00:39]-[00:52]):** Clearly states that Fisher House's main focus is housing but then explains the indirect support system (motivation from the community, a stable home) that helped Will. This is a logical and relevant answer that directly addresses the user's query.\n5. **A's third question ([00:51]-[01:02]):** Shifts the topic to Minie Curry and asks about accommodations and specific services for long-term caregivers.\n6. **B's third response ([01:02]-[01:13]):** Directly answers by mentioning \"counseling services, support groups, and even simple things like laundry,\" which are specific services for caregivers. This is perfectly on-topic.\n7. **A's fourth question ([01:12]-[01:21]):** Asks for details about a vow renewal ceremony, how it was made possible, and its significance.\n8. **B's fourth response ([01:22]-[01:40]):** Provides a detailed, relevant narrative explaining that the staff and volunteers organized the event and what it symbolized for the couple (\"hope after years of struggle\").\n\nOverall, every response from B is directly relevant, coherent, and logically consistent with the questions asked by A. The conversation flows logically.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the Interactional Fluency of the dialogue, focusing on extended overlaps and long pauses.\n\n1. **Pauses:** I will check the time gaps between turns.\n * [00:14] -> [00:15]: A 1-second pause. This is a natural gap.\n * [00:28] -> [00:27]: There is a 1-second overlap, not a pause.\n * [00:38] -> [00:39]: A 1-second pause. This is natural.\n * [00:52] -> [00:51]: A 1-second overlap.\n * [01:02] -> [01:02]: No pause, very smooth transition.\n * [01:13] -> [01:12]: A 1-second overlap.\n * [01:21] -> [01:22]: A 1-second pause. This is natural.\n There are no long or awkward pauses in the conversation. The transitions are smooth.\n\n2. **Overlaps:** I will check for overlapping speech.\n * [00:22],[00:23] B: \"Sure.\" - This is a brief interjection during B's own turn. It acts as a natural filler or affirmation and doesn't disrupt the flow.\n * [00:27],[00:28] A overlaps with the last second of B's turn. This is very brief and typical of an engaged conversation where the next speaker is eager to jump in. It is not disruptive.\n * [00:43]-[00:47] B interjects with \"Really,\" \"Hmm,\" \"Ummm\" during their own turn. These are conversational fillers and are acceptable.\n * [00:51],[00:52] A overlaps with the last second of B's turn, another natural and non-disruptive overlap.\n * [01:05]-[01:09] B interjects \"Mm hmm,\" \"Sure\" during their own speech. Again, these are natural fillers.\n * [01:12],[01:13] A overlaps with B's final second. This pattern is consistent and indicates a fluent, interactive style.\n * [01:27]-[01:32] B interjects with \"Hmm,\" \"Right,\" \"Mm\" during their own turn. These are natural backchanneling cues or fillers.\n\nThe overlaps are consistently brief (1 second) and occur at the transition between turns, which is a sign of a highly fluent and natural interaction. There are no extended or disruptive overlaps. The fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/144",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: Hey, I left the trash bag by the front door like you asked.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:03],[00:06]] B: You're supposed to take it out to the garage.\n[[00:06],[00:08]] A: I know, but I didn't feel like it.\n[[00:08],[00:10]] B: Rosaline, you need to do what I say.\n[[00:11],[00:13]] A: Why? You're not my boss.\n[[00:14],[00:21]] B: Because I'm your father and I know what's best for you. Now go take out the trash before it starts to\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:18],[00:18]] B: Really.\n[[00:20],[00:25]] A: But this is stupid. I don't see why I can't just leave it by the front door.\n[[00:23],[00:23]] A: I see.\n[[00:25],[00:40]] B: Because that's not how we do things in this family. We take care of our own messes and we don't leave things for other people to deal with. Now go take out the trash and then come back inside and we'll talk about your chores and responsibilities more clearly.\n[[00:30],[00:31]] B: Cool.\n[[00:32],[00:33]] B: Sure.\n[[00:34],[00:35]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:40],[00:46]] A: Wait, before I go, can you explain why it's so important to take it to the garage specifically?\n[[00:43],[00:44]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:46],[00:56]] B: It's important because it keeps the house clean and prevents any unwanted smells or pests. Now, please, just do it and then we can discuss any other concerns you have.\n[[00:49],[00:50]] B: Um.\n[[00:51],[00:52]] B: That's cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue presents a coherent and logical conversation between two speakers, likely a parent (B) and a child (A). The topic revolves around taking out the trash. Each turn is a direct and relevant response to the previous one. Speaker A starts by stating they left the trash by the door. Speaker B corrects them, stating it should go to the garage. A provides a reason for non-compliance (\"I didn't feel like it\"), which leads to a discussion about authority and the reasons for the rule. The conversation follows a clear, logical progression of a disagreement, with each speaker's utterance making sense in the context of what was just said. The topic coherence is maintained throughout the entire interaction.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is rapid and smooth, which is characteristic of a natural argument or disagreement. There are no prolonged or awkward pauses between turns; the speakers respond to each other immediately. For instance, B responds at [00:03] right after A finishes, and A responds at [00:06] right after B finishes. There is a one-second overlap from [00:20] to [00:21] where A interrupts B, but this is brief and entirely natural within the context of an argument. It's an interruption, not a problematic extended overlap where both speakers talk over each other unintelligibly. The other short utterances listed (e.g., \"Uh huh,\" \"I see,\" \"Cool\") are attributed to the speaker who is already talking, indicating they are filler words or self-corrections rather than interactional overlaps. Therefore, the flow between the two distinct speakers is very smooth.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/144",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: I want a discount on my meal because it was cold.\n[[00:01],[00:01]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:04],[00:09]] B: I'm sorry to hear that your food was cold, but we can't give you a discount.\n[[00:06],[00:07]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:10],[00:16]] A: That's not acceptable. I paid for a hot meal and that's what I should have\n[[00:13],[00:14]] A: Uh.\n[[00:15],[00:20]] B: I understand your frustration, but can I offer you a complimentary dessert instead?\n[[00:18],[00:18]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:21],[00:27]] A: We'll do our best to make sure your food is hot next time, but we can't give you a discount this time.\n[[00:24],[00:25]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:27],[00:31]] B: Fine. But I'm never coming back here if this is how you handle customer complaints.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: Really.\n[[00:33],[00:40]] A: I'm really sorry to hear that. If there's anything else we can do to make up for this experience, please let us know.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] A: Right.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue appears to be a role-playing or debriefing scenario between two individuals, likely colleagues, about handling a customer complaint.\n\n- Speaker A starts by stating the customer's complaint: \"I want a discount on my meal because it was cold.\"\n- Speaker B responds as the employee would: \"I'm sorry to hear that... but we can't give you a discount.\"\n- Speaker A then voices the customer's counter-argument: \"That's not acceptable...\"\n- Speaker B continues in the employee role, offering a compromise: \"...can I offer you a complimentary dessert instead?\"\n- Speaker A then seems to model a different or better response for the employee: \"We'll do our best to make sure your food is hot next time...\"\n- Speaker B then states the customer's angry conclusion: \"Fine. But I'm never coming back here...\"\n- Finally, Speaker A provides a model closing statement for the employee: \"I'm really sorry to hear that...\"\n\nViewed through this lens, the conversation is perfectly logical and coherent. Each turn is a relevant response to the previous one within the context of the role-play. The topic coherence is maintained throughout the interaction.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency of the dialogue is excellent.\n- **Pauses:** The pauses between speaker turns are brief and natural (1 second at [00:03], 1 second at [00:09], 1 second at [00:20], and 2 seconds at [00:31]). The slightly longer 2-second pause is well within the bounds of a normal conversational rhythm and does not disrupt the flow.\n- **Overlaps:** There are no disruptive overlaps between the two main speakers. The minor hesitations and fillers (like \"Ummm,\" \"Uh,\" \"Right\") are self-overlaps and are characteristic of natural, spontaneous speech. They do not interfere with the exchange of information. The turn-taking is smooth and seamless.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/145",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:05]] A: Education is so important. It's the key to success in\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:04],[00:11]] B: I couldn't agree more. But do you think we're doing enough to ensure that everyone has equal access to quality education?\n[[00:06],[00:07]] B: Uh.\n[[00:08],[00:08]] B: Right.\n[[00:11],[00:26]] A: That's a great point. Access is definitely an issue, especially in underserved communities. We need to make sure that our schools are providing students with the best possible education so that they can compete in the global economy.\n[[00:15],[00:17]] A: Cool.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] A: Right.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] A: Really.\n[[00:26],[00:36]] B: We also need to make sure that our schools are safe and secure places for learning. We need to do everything we can to create an environment where students feel protected and supported.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: I see.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Sure.\n[[00:37],[00:47]] A: Definitely, safety is crucial. But what about the mental health support for students? I think that's just as important for creating a secure learning environment.\n[[00:40],[00:41]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] A: Really.\n[[00:48],[01:00]] B: Yes, you're right. Mental health is a key component of safety. We need to ensure that our schools are equipped with the latest security technology and also have adequate resources for mental health support.\n[[01:01],[01:10]] A: And we also need to make sure that our schools are affordable for families. We need to ensure that we're providing the best value for taxpayers' money.\n[[01:10],[01:20]] B: Absolutely. We need to be good stewards of the public trust and make sure that our schools are fiscally responsible, while still addressing all these critical needs.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance and topic coherence. The conversation begins with a general statement about the importance of education. Speaker B then logically pivots to the specific issue of equal access, which Speaker A acknowledges and expands upon. The topic then naturally progresses to school safety, which Speaker A further refines by introducing the related concept of mental health support. Speaker B validates this point and integrates it into the discussion. Finally, the conversation shifts to the practical aspect of affordability and fiscal responsibility, which is a relevant and logical conclusion to a discussion about improving public education. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous statement, creating a coherent and logical progression of ideas.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the transitions are smooth and immediate, often with one speaker starting at the exact moment the other finishes (e.g., turn transitions at [00:11], [00:26], and [01:10]). The single-second gaps between turns (e.g., [00:36]-[00:37], [00:47]-[00:48]) are natural conversational pauses. There is a minor, one-second overlap at the beginning ([00:04]-[00:05]), where Speaker B begins slightly before Speaker A finishes, which is a common and natural feature of an engaged conversation. The frequent, short backchanneling cues (\"Mhm,\" \"Right,\" \"Sure\") occur within the main speaker's turn and indicate active listening without disrupting the flow. There are no instances of harmful, extended overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/145",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: Could you tell me more about the Volkswagen I.D. Buzz's horsepower and driving range? I'm really interested in how these specs compare to other electric vans on the market today.\n[[00:10],[00:17]] B: Sure! The I.D. Buzz delivers over 350 horsepower, which gives it plenty of\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:14],[00:14]] B: Sure.\n[[00:16],[00:27]] A: Wait, does that 250-mile range apply to all versions of the I.D. Buzz, or are there different battery options available that might offer more range? I'm curious about the variations.\n[[00:28],[00:37]] B: Good question! Currently, Volkswagen offers the single battery configuration with that 250-mile estimate. But they've hinted at future\n[[00:31],[00:31]] B: Mm.\n[[00:32],[00:33]] B: I see.\n[[00:36],[00:47]] A: You mentioned the battery is in the floor - does that mean passengers get more headroom compared to traditional vans? And how does the low center of gravity affect the driving experience?\n[[00:47],[00:58]] B: Absolutely! The floor-mounted battery creates a flat interior with great headroom. As for handling, the low weight distribution makes it feel\n[[00:51],[00:53]] B: Um.\n[[00:57],[01:08]] A: That sounds impressive! Could you compare the I.D. Buzz's acceleration and top speed to something like a Tesla Model Y, since they're both electric but different vehicle types?\n[[01:08],[01:24]] B: While not as quick as a Model Y, the I.D. Buzz still accelerates briskly for a van - about 0-60 in under 7 seconds. Top speed is electronically limited to around 100 mph, which is plenty for highway driving.\n[[01:13],[01:14]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[01:14],[01:15]] B: Really.\n[[01:16],[01:17]] B: Yeah, yeah.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the provided dialogue transcript for Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n1. **A's first turn [[00:00],[00:10]]**: A asks a clear, specific question about the I.D. Buzz's horsepower and range, and requests a comparison to other electric vans.\n2. **B's first turn [[00:10],[00:17]]**: B begins to answer the question directly, starting with the horsepower.\n3. **A's second turn [[00:16],[00:27]]**: A asks a follow-up question about the range, specifically asking if the \"250-mile range\" applies to all versions. This indicates that B must have mentioned the range figure in the part of their utterance that might be slightly overlapped or not fully transcribed. A's question is a logical and coherent follow-up.\n4. **B's second turn [[00:28],[00:37]]**: B answers A's question about the battery configuration directly and relevantly.\n5. **A's third turn [[00:36],[00:47]]**: A asks another logical follow-up question based on information B must have provided (battery in the floor), inquiring about headroom and handling. The topic remains coherent.\n6. **B's third turn [[00:47],[00:58]]**: B provides a direct and relevant answer to both parts of A's question.\n7. **A's fourth turn [[00:57],[01:08]]**: A requests another specific comparison, this time between the I.D. Buzz and a Tesla Model Y regarding performance. This is a consistent and logical progression of the conversation.\n8. **B's fourth turn [[01:08],[01:24]]**: B provides the specific comparison A asked for, giving acceleration and top speed details.\n\n**Conclusion**: The dialogue is highly coherent and logically consistent. Each turn directly relates to the previous one, with B providing relevant answers to A's questions. The topic progresses naturally without any deviations.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the Interactional Fluency, focusing on extended overlaps and long pauses.\n\n1. **Pauses**: I will check the time gaps between turns.\n * A ends at [00:10], B starts at [00:10]. No pause.\n * B ends at [00:17], A starts at [00:16]. (1-second overlap, see below).\n * A ends at [00:27], B starts at [00:28]. 1-second pause, which is natural.\n * B ends at [00:37], A starts at [00:36]. (1-second overlap, see below).\n * A ends at [00:47], B starts at [00:47]. No pause.\n * B ends at [00:58], A starts at [00:57]. (1-second overlap, see below).\n * A ends at [01:08], B starts at [01:08]. No pause.\n There are no long or awkward pauses. The turn-taking is very smooth and quick.\n\n2. **Overlaps**:\n * There are several instances of backchanneling (\"Uh huh,\" \"Sure,\" \"Mm,\" etc.) attributed to speaker B while B is speaking. This is likely a transcription error, and these are actually from speaker A, indicating active listening. In either case, they are very brief and do not disrupt the flow. They are not harmful overlaps.\n * There are three instances of a 1-second overlap where A begins speaking just before B finishes. For example, from [00:16] to [00:17], both A and B are speaking. This is a very minor overlap, typical of an engaged and fast-paced conversation, and is not disruptive. It does not qualify as a harmful, extended overlap.\n\n**Conclusion**: The interaction is very fluid. There are no detrimental long pauses. The overlaps are minimal and characteristic of a natural, engaged conversation rather than a competitive or disruptive one.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/145",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:18]] A: That memoir was incredibly powerful and emotional. Could you tell me more about how the protagonist's daily life changed after receiving their diagnosis? I'm particularly interested in hearing about the practical adjustments they had to make to their routine and how they managed their energy levels throughout the day.\n[[00:19],[00:37]] B: The protagonist's daily life changed significantly after the diagnosis. Mornings started later because fatigue made early rising difficult. Simple tasks like showering or making breakfast became exhausting, requiring rest breaks. They had\n[[00:25],[00:25]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:27],[00:27]] B: Sure.\n[[00:29],[00:29]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:36],[00:53]] A: The way you describe these lifestyle changes really helps me understand the challenges. Could you share more about how the protagonist's relationships with family and friends evolved during this difficult time? I'd love to hear specific examples of support that made the biggest difference.\n[[00:54],[01:19]] B: Relationships deepened in unexpected ways during this period. Close family members took turns accompanying the protagonist to treatments, while friends organized meal deliveries. Some relationships grew stronger through shared vulnerability, while others faded when people couldn't handle the illness. The protagonist learned to appreciate small gestures like quiet companionship during difficult days.\n[[01:02],[01:02]] B: Sure.\n[[01:03],[01:05]] B: Really.\n[[01:06],[01:07]] B: Sure.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and logical consistency of the dialogue.\n\n1. **A's first turn ([00:00]-[00:18])**: Speaker A asks a clear and specific question about how a protagonist's daily life changed after a diagnosis, focusing on practical adjustments and energy management.\n2. **B's first turn ([00:19]-[00:37])**: Speaker B provides a direct and relevant answer. It addresses the practical changes (later mornings, needing rest breaks for simple tasks) and energy management (fatigue, exhaustion). The response is perfectly on-topic.\n3. **A's second turn ([00:36]-[00:53])**: Speaker A acknowledges the previous answer and asks a logical follow-up question about the evolution of relationships with family and friends, requesting specific examples. This shows coherent topic development.\n4. **B's second turn ([00:54]-[01:19])**: Speaker B again answers directly, providing specific examples of how relationships changed (family accompanying to treatments, friends organizing meals, some relationships fading). The response is detailed and fully relevant to the question.\n\nOverall, the dialogue is highly coherent, with each response logically following from the preceding turn. The conversation develops a topic naturally and effectively.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses**:\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's first turn ending at [00:18] and B's response starting at [00:19]. This is a natural turn-taking gap.\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's second turn ending at [00:53] and B's response starting at [00:54]. This is also a natural and appropriate pause.\n * There are no prolonged or awkward pauses in the conversation.\n\n2. **Overlaps**:\n * There is a minor, 1-second overlap where A's turn at [00:36] begins just before B's turn at [00:37] ends. This is a very brief and common type of overlap in natural conversation and is not disruptive.\n * There are several short interjections from Speaker B (e.g., \"Mhm,\" \"Sure,\" \"Really\"). Although their timestamps are incorrectly placed within B's own speaking turns in the transcript, they function as backchannels. Assuming they occurred during A's turns, these short interjections indicate active listening and are a key feature of fluent, interactive dialogue. They are not harmful overlaps.\n\nThe interactional flow is smooth and natural, characterized by appropriate turn-taking pauses and supportive, non-disruptive backchanneling.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/145",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:05]] A: Hey boss, I think it's time for me to move on. I'm done with this job, and the corporate\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Really.\n[[00:04],[00:09]] B: Wait, Malinda, what happened? Did something specific trigger this decision?\n[[00:06],[00:07]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:10],[00:15]] A: It's not just one thing. I know, but I'm just not happy here anymore. I need a change.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:16],[00:26]] B: I see. Well, if that's what you really want, then I won't try to stop you. But are you sure? This is a great opportunity for growth, and I don't want you to miss out on that.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] B: Um.\n[[00:27],[00:31]] A: I appreciate that, but yes, I'm sure. I've thought this through.\n[[00:28],[00:29]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:31],[00:35]] B: Of course. Good luck with whatever you do next.\n[[00:33],[00:34]] B: Mm hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation follows a logical and coherent path from start to finish. Speaker A starts by announcing their intention to quit. Speaker B's response is a relevant and natural question asking for the reason. Speaker A clarifies their feelings, and Speaker B acknowledges this while also trying to persuade A to stay, which is a logical step for a manager. A reaffirms their decision, and B respectfully accepts it and wishes them well. Each turn is a direct and logical reaction to the preceding one, maintaining perfect topic coherence.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the transitions are all smooth and natural, typically around one second long. There is one very brief, one-second overlap between A's first turn and B's response ([00:04]-[00:05]). This type of short overlap is very common in natural conversation, especially when one person is reacting to surprising news, and it does not disrupt the flow. The other utterances listed within a speaker's main turn (e.g., \"Mhm\", \"Ummm\") are natural fillers or self-corrections and do not constitute harmful overlaps. Overall, the conversation flows very naturally.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/146",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:06]] A: Hey, thanks so much for asking me to paint this picture of your house! It's really beautiful.\n[[00:02],[00:04]] A: Uh.\n[[00:06],[00:13]] B: Of course, thank you so much for doing it! I love your paintings, and I knew you'd do a great job. How much do I owe\n[[00:08],[00:09]] B: Really.\n[[00:10],[00:10]] B: Really.\n[[00:13],[00:21]] A: Sorry to cut in, but I wanted to clarify something about the colors you wanted. Did you prefer a more vibrant palette or something more muted?\n[[00:15],[00:16]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] A: I see.\n[[00:21],[00:26]] B: Oh, I think a vibrant palette would be wonderful. But back to my question, how much do I owe you?\n[[00:24],[00:25]] B: Right.\n[[00:27],[00:35]] A: Well, since it's a special request, I'll charge you my standard rate of $50.00. Is that okay with the payment method you prefer?\n[[00:29],[00:30]] A: I see.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] A: Right.\n[[00:35],[00:42]] B: Absolutely, thank you so much! By the way, could you also add a little more detail to the garden area?\n[[00:37],[00:38]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] B: Mm hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Both speakers remain focused on the central topic: the commission of a painting. Speaker A begins by thanking Speaker B, who then reciprocates and asks about the payment. Speaker A interrupts to clarify a detail about the painting (color palette), which is a relevant and important question for the task. Speaker B answers the question and then skillfully returns to their original question about payment, demonstrating strong topic management. Speaker A then answers the payment question directly and asks about the payment method. The conversation concludes with Speaker B agreeing and making another relevant request about the painting's details. Each turn logically follows the previous one, creating a coherent and purposeful conversation.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very high. There are no long or awkward pauses between turns, indicating a smooth and natural conversational flow. While there is a noticeable overlap when Speaker A cuts in at [00:13] to ask about the colors, they immediately acknowledge it by saying, \"Sorry to cut in,\" which is a polite and natural way to handle such an interruption in a real conversation. The other minor overlaps noted in the transcript are brief backchanneling cues or filler words within a single speaker's turn (e.g., \"Right,\" \"Mm hmm\"), which are typical of natural speech and do not disrupt the flow of the dialogue between the two speakers.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/146",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: I want to buy a new computer. Can you help me choose one?\n[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Right.\n[[00:03],[00:04]] B: Not really.\n[[00:04],[00:05]] A: Why not?\n[[00:05],[00:09]] B: Macs are good computers, but I don't know much about them.\n[[00:07],[00:08]] B: Really.\n[[00:09],[00:12]] A: I can't afford a Mac, so I'm looking for something cheaper.\n[[00:10],[00:11]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:13],[00:18]] B: Well, PCs are good too. Maybe I can give you some advice. I am not an expert on\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Sure.\n[[00:17],[00:22]] A: Actually, that's fine! Even basic advice would be helpful. What do you like about Macs?\n[[00:20],[00:21]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:23],[00:27]] B: I like them because they are easy to use and really reliable.\n[[00:24],[00:25]] B: Really.\n[[00:27],[00:31]] A: So you think they are good for people with less technical experience?\n[[00:29],[00:30]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:32],[00:34]] B: Yeah. I don't think you would regret getting one.\n[[00:35],[00:40]] A: Thanks! I'll look around and make a decision. Do you like Apple products?\n[[00:37],[00:38]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:40],[00:47]] B: I'm not big on Apple, but they are reliable and they have a strong ecosystem that some people really appreciate.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:47],[00:52]] A: Oh, I see. I guess reliability is a big factor for you, then?\n[[00:49],[00:50]] A: Mhm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance of the responses in the dialogue.\n\n1. **A's opening:** \"I want to buy a new computer. Can you help me choose one?\" - This is a clear request.\n2. **B's response:** \"Not really.\" - This is a direct, albeit initially unhelpful, answer.\n3. **A's follow-up:** \"Why not?\" - This is a logical question to B's refusal.\n4. **B's explanation:** \"Macs are good computers, but I don't know much about them.\" - B explains their limitation, assuming A might be interested in a Mac. This is a relevant explanation.\n5. **A's clarification:** \"I can't afford a Mac, so I'm looking for something cheaper.\" - A clarifies their budget constraint, which is highly relevant to the topic of buying a computer.\n6. **B's adjustment:** \"Well, PCs are good too. Maybe I can give you some advice.\" - B adapts to A's new information and offers help on a different type of computer. This is a relevant and helpful response.\n7. **A's pivot:** \"Actually, that's fine! Even basic advice would be helpful. What do you like about Macs?\" - A accepts the offer but then asks about Macs again, which they just said they couldn't afford. While slightly contradictory to their stated goal, it's still on the general topic of computers and could be driven by curiosity. It doesn't derail the conversation.\n8. **B's answer:** \"I like them because they are easy to use and really reliable.\" - B directly answers A's question about Macs.\n9. **A's inference:** \"So you think they are good for people with less technical experience?\" - This is a logical follow-up question based on B's \"easy to use\" comment.\n10. **B's confirmation:** \"Yeah. I don't think you would regret getting one.\" - B confirms A's inference.\n11. **A's closing/topic shift:** \"Thanks! I'll look around... Do you like Apple products?\" - A thanks B for the advice and then broadens the topic slightly to Apple products in general. This is a smooth and coherent transition.\n12. **B's opinion:** \"I'm not big on Apple, but they are reliable...\" - B provides a balanced opinion, which is a relevant answer to A's question.\n13. **A's final comment:** \"I guess reliability is a big factor for you, then?\" - A makes an astute observation based on B's repeated use of the word \"reliable.\" This shows active listening and is highly relevant.\n\nOverall, the dialogue is thematically coherent and logically consistent. Each turn is a direct and relevant response to the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pauses:**\n- [[00:12],[00:13]]: 1-second pause between A and B. Normal.\n- [[00:22],[00:23]]: 1-second pause between A and B. Normal.\n- [[00:31],[00:32]]: 1-second pause between A and B. Normal.\n- [[00:34],[00:35]]: 1-second pause between A and B. Normal.\nThere are no long or awkward pauses in the conversation. The timing between turns is natural.\n\n**Overlaps:**\n- The transcript contains many annotations like [[00:00],[00:02]] A: Right. and [[00:07],[00:08]] B: Really. that occur during the main speaker's turn. These are either transcription errors or, more likely, backchannels (short affirmations) that are naturally spoken while another person is talking. These are signs of active listening and do not disrupt the flow. They are not harmful overlaps.\n- The only true overlap between main conversational turns is from [[00:17]] to [[00:18]].\n - B is saying: \"Maybe I can give you some advice. I am not an expert on\" [[00:13],[00:18]]\n - A starts saying: \"Actually, that's fine! Even basic advice would be helpful.\" [[00:17],[00:22]]\n- This is a one-second overlap where A cuts in. However, A's interruption is collaborative (\"that's fine!\"), indicating they've heard enough of B's offer to accept it. This kind of brief, cooperative overlap is common in natural conversation and does not harm fluency.\n\nThere are no extended, disruptive overlaps. The turn-taking is smooth and the pacing is conversational.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/146",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: Wow, I can't believe I'm actually here! This is amazing!\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:05],[00:12]] B: Yes, it certainly is. Africa is a beautiful continent with a lot of amazing\n[[00:07],[00:07]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:08],[00:09]] B: Mm.\n[[00:11],[00:17]] A: Sorry to jump in, but I just have to ask-how do you manage to stay safe around all these wild animals?\n[[00:14],[00:15]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:17],[00:30]] B: Safety is always a priority. We follow strict guidelines and have experienced guides. But as I was saying, Africa's wildlife is truly incredible. You mentioned wanting to work with animals-\n[[00:24],[00:25]] B: Really.\n[[00:31],[00:35]] A: Yes! I've always dreamed of it. How close do you usually get to the lions?\n[[00:33],[00:34]] A: I see.\n[[00:36],[00:45]] B: Well, it depends. Sometimes we see them from a distance, but sometimes we're able to get quite close.\n[[00:39],[00:39]] B: Really.\n[[00:40],[00:41]] B: Sure.\n[[00:46],[00:51]] A: That's amazing! I would love to work with animals like this when I grow up.\n[[00:48],[00:49]] A: Cool.\n[[00:52],[01:03]] B: That's great! There are many careers working with wildlife. It's a lot of hard work, but with dedication, you can make a significant impact on conservation efforts.\n[[00:55],[00:56]] B: Uh.\n[[01:05],[01:09]] A: Speaking of hard work, what kind of training would I need to get into this field?\n[[01:10],[01:22]] B: You'll need a solid background in biology or zoology, and hands-on experience is key. But as I was saying, it can be very rewarding when you see the positive effects of your work on the environment and the animals.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance and topic coherence. Speaker A expresses excitement about being in Africa, and Speaker B confirms this sentiment. Speaker A then asks a relevant question about safety around wild animals, which Speaker B answers before skillfully steering the conversation back to Speaker A's previously mentioned interest in working with animals. The subsequent exchanges are all logical follow-ups, discussing career aspirations, proximity to animals (lions), and the necessary training. The conversation flows naturally and stays focused on the central themes of wildlife, conservation, and careers in the field.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no prolonged pauses that disrupt the conversational flow. The longest pauses are only two seconds long (e.g., between 00:03 and 00:05), which is well within the range of natural conversation. There is one instance of overlapping speech where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B ([00:11]-[00:12]). However, this overlap is brief (1 second) and is managed smoothly as Speaker A explicitly acknowledges the interruption (\"Sorry to jump in\"). This type of brief, managed overlap is characteristic of natural, enthusiastic conversation and does not harm fluency.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/147",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: What is my purpose?\n[[00:03],[00:13]] B: Your purpose is to help others. You have a strong desire to assist those who are going through difficult times. You feel a sense of fulfillment when you are able to help\n[[00:06],[00:07]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:08],[00:09]] B: Cool.\n[[00:12],[00:23]] A: Sorry to jump in, but I just thought of something. When you say I feel fulfilled, do you mean it's more about personal satisfaction or is it about making a tangible difference in their lives?\n[[00:16],[00:16]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:18],[00:18]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:24],[00:35]] B: It's actually both. Personal satisfaction comes from making a tangible difference. Now, why do I feel drawn to helping people who are struggling?\n[[00:27],[00:28]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:36],[00:49]] A: You are compassionate and empathetic, and you want to help others because you understand what they are going through. You have the ability to offer support and guidance to those who need someone to lean on during tough times.\n[[00:42],[00:43]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:50],[00:58]] B: Speaking of guidance, do you think providing practical advice is more effective than emotional support, or should it be a balance of both?\n[[00:53],[00:53]] B: Sure.\n[[00:54],[00:55]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[01:00],[01:14]] A: It should definitely be a balance of both. Practical advice can help solve immediate problems, while emotional support can provide comfort and strength. Now, what can I do to best help those who are going through difficult times?\n[[01:04],[01:05]] A: Ummm.\n[[01:15],[01:26]] B: You can listen to them, offer them your support, and help them to find resources that will be beneficial to them. You can also provide spiritual guidance if they are open to it.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation begins with a philosophical question about purpose and maintains a tight, logical progression throughout. Speaker B's initial response directly addresses A's question. Speaker A then asks a relevant clarifying question ([[00:12]]), which B answers before posing a new, related question ([[00:24]]). Each subsequent turn builds directly upon the previous one, exploring different facets of the central theme of helping others (e.g., the nature of guidance, practical vs. emotional support, specific actions). The topic coherence is strong, with no irrelevant tangents or non-sequiturs.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is high. There are no prolonged or awkward pauses between turns; the gaps are short and typical of natural conversation (e.g., 1-2 second pauses at [[00:23]]-[[00:24]] and [[00:58]]-[[01:00]]). There is one notable overlap where A cuts in at [[00:12]] while B is still speaking. However, A immediately acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which is a polite and natural way to manage an interruption in a collaborative conversation. Other brief overlaps consist of normal backchanneling (e.g., A's \"Uh huh\" at [[00:18]]), which indicates active listening and enhances fluency. The conversation flows smoothly without disruptive interruptions.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/148",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:12]] A: Could you explain more about how the acid-free paper and pigment inks actually work to preserve artwork? I'm curious about the science behind why they last longer than regular materials.\n[[00:12],[00:21]] B: Sure thing! Acid-free paper doesn't yellow or break down over time because it's pH neutral. The pigment inks are\n[[00:15],[00:15]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Cool.\n[[00:20],[00:29]] A: That's interesting, but what about the framing techniques you mentioned earlier? Could you describe how archival mounting protects the artwork from damage compared to regular framing?\n[[00:30],[00:39]] B: Archival mounting uses acid-free mats and backing boards to prevent chemical reactions. The glass is UV-protective to block\n[[00:33],[00:34]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: Uh.\n[[00:39],[00:49]] A: You mentioned the print giveaway isn't limited edition—does that mean the winner's artwork could potentially be printed and sold indefinitely, or are there any restrictions at all?\n[[00:50],[01:00]] B: That's right, there's no cap on prints, but the original artwork always stays with the artist. The winner gets unlimited personal prints,\n[[00:53],[00:54]] B: Cool.\n[[00:55],[00:55]] B: Really.\n[[00:59],[01:09]] A: When you say commercial rights stay with you, does that include selling prints of the winning artwork in your own shop or using it for promotional purposes?\n[[01:09],[01:19]] B: Exactly—I might use it in my portfolio or shop unless the winner requests otherwise. But we'd always have a conversation first to make sure everyone's comfortable with the arrangement.\n[[01:12],[01:13]] B: Really.\n[[01:14],[01:14]] B: Mm hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each turn from speaker B is a direct and logical answer to the preceding question from speaker A. The conversation progresses coherently through a series of related topics: starting with the technical aspects of art preservation (acid-free paper, pigment inks), moving to framing techniques (archival mounting), and then shifting to the terms of a print giveaway (edition size, commercial rights). Speaker A's questions are clear follow-ups that build on B's previous answers, and B's responses are consistently on-topic and informative. There are no logical inconsistencies or off-topic diversions.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no prolonged pauses between turns that would indicate disengagement or difficulty. The pauses that exist are brief (around one second) and serve as natural transitions between speakers. There are two instances of a very brief (one-second) overlap where speaker A begins speaking just before speaker B finishes. These overlaps are not disruptive; rather, they reflect an engaged and fast-paced conversation where A is eager to ask a follow-up question. The dialogue does not suffer from extended, competitive interruptions. The backchannels (e.g., \"Mhm,\" \"Cool\") listed under speaker B during B's own speaking turns appear to be transcription errors, as a person cannot speak two distinct utterances at once. Ignoring these errors, the turn-taking between A and B is smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/148",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: That letter was perfect, thank you! Could you help me think of some fun activities we could do when my siblings visit next month? I want to make it special since we don't see each other often.\n[[00:12],[00:17]] B: Absolutely! Since you don't see them often, you could plan a themed\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:17],[00:29]] A: Those are wonderful ideas! For the game night, could you suggest some specific board games that work well for groups of five or six people? I'd love games that are easy to learn but still really engaging for adults.\n[[00:30],[00:50]] B: For groups your size, Codenames is fantastic - it's a word association game that gets everyone talking. Ticket to Ride is another great choice where you build train routes across a map. Or try Catan, a strategy game about building settlements that's easy to learn but has lots of depth.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] B: Um.\n[[00:38],[00:39]] B: Um.\n[[00:40],[00:41]] B: Sure.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A begins with a clear request for activity ideas. Speaker B's initial response is directly relevant, although it seems to be cut off in the transcript. Speaker A's follow-up is a logical continuation, asking for more specific details (board games) based on the implied suggestions. Speaker B's final, longer turn is highly relevant and helpful, providing specific game suggestions that directly address the criteria mentioned by speaker A (group size, ease of learning, engagement). The conversation is coherent and progresses logically from a general topic to a more specific one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is smooth and seamless, with no awkward or prolonged pauses between speakers. For instance, the transition at the 17-second mark is immediate. There are no disruptive overlaps where speakers talk over each other. The brief interjections from speaker B (\"Yeah, yeah\", \"Um\", \"Sure\") occur within their own speaking turns and function as natural fillers or hesitation markers while thinking. They do not interrupt the other speaker or hinder the flow of the conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/148",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: Could you tell me what makes summer so special for you and describe it in a way that really brings the experience to life? I'd love to hear about all the wonderful sensations that make summer your favorite season.\n[[00:12],[00:31]] B: My favorite part of summer is definitely the beach. The sound of waves crashing is so peaceful, like nature's lullaby. I love the salty ocean smell mixed with sunscreen, and how warm sand feels between my toes. The bright sunshine makes everything look more colorful and alive. It's\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:22],[00:22]] B: Um.\n[[00:31],[00:41]] A: That sounds absolutely wonderful! Could you describe your favorite summer treat in more detail too? What does it taste like and how does it make you feel when you enjoy it on a hot day?\n[[00:42],[01:04]] B: Nothing beats an ice-cold popsicle on a hot summer day! The first bite is amazing - sweet fruit flavors burst in your mouth. It's so refreshing as the coolness slides down your throat. The icy treat instantly cools you off when the sun is blazing. That perfect mix of sweetness and chill makes summer afternoons extra special and delicious.\n[[00:49],[00:50]] B: Mm.\n[[00:51],[00:52]] B: Uh.\n[[00:53],[00:54]] B: Okay,okay.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance.\n\n1. **A's first question ([[00:00],[00:11]]):** Asks B to describe what makes summer special with sensory details.\n2. **B's first response ([[00:12],[00:31]]):** B directly answers by describing the beach. The response is rich with sensory details as requested (\"sound of waves,\" \"salty ocean smell,\" \"warm sand feels\"). The response is perfectly relevant and coherent. The short interjections within B's turn ([[00:18],[00:22]]) are fillers and don't detract from the relevance of the main content.\n3. **A's second question ([[00:31],[00:41]]):** A acknowledges B's answer and asks a logical follow-up question about a favorite summer treat, again requesting details about taste and feeling.\n4. **B's second response ([[00:42],[01:04]]):** B answers directly by describing an ice-cold popsicle. The response details the taste (\"sweet fruit flavors\") and feeling (\"refreshing,\" \"coolness slides down your throat\"), perfectly matching the prompt. The response is logically consistent and on-topic.\n\nAll responses are directly relevant to the questions asked, and the conversation progresses logically.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n* **Pauses:**\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's first turn ending at [00:11] and B's response starting at [00:12]. This is a natural and acceptable pause in conversation.\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's second turn ending at [00:41] and B's response starting at [00:42]. This is also a natural and acceptable pause.\n * There are no long, awkward pauses between turns that would disrupt the flow.\n\n* **Overlaps:**\n * The transcript shows no instances of speakers talking over each other. Each speaker waits for the other to finish before beginning their turn.\n\n* **Fillers:**\n * Speaker B uses some fillers like \"Ummm,\" \"Uh,\" and \"Mm\" during their turns. These are timed within their main speech segments and represent natural speech patterns, not a breakdown in fluency.\n\nThe interaction is smooth, with natural turn-taking and no harmful overlaps or pauses.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/148",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:15]] A: You mentioned that violent video games can increase aggression in young people, but could you explain exactly how this happens psychologically? What specific mechanisms in the brain are affected when children play these games repeatedly over time?\n[[00:16],[00:25]] B: When kids play violent games often, their brains can start seeing aggression as more normal. The\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Sure.\n[[00:21],[00:21]] B: Right.\n[[00:24],[00:37]] A: That makes sense about the brain's reward system, but what about emotional development? Could you tell me how these games might interfere with a child's ability to develop empathy and understand others' feelings?\n[[00:37],[00:43]] B: Violent games can make it harder for kids to recognize emotions in others. They\n[[00:40],[00:40]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:42],[00:56]] A: You said earlier that boys show stronger effects than girls - could you explain why that might be the case? Is it biological differences or more about how society treats boys and girls differently when it comes to aggression?\n[[00:57],[01:07]] B: It's actually both factors working together. Boys naturally have more testosterone, which can make them more physically aggressive. But\n[[01:00],[01:01]] B: Um.\n[[01:02],[01:02]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[01:06],[01:16]] A: For parents who are worried about this, what are some clear warning signs they should watch for in their child's behavior that might indicate the games are having negative effects?\n[[01:17],[01:25]] B: Look for increased anger, trouble controlling emotions, or copying game violence in real life. If schoolwork\n[[01:19],[01:20]] B: Hmm.\n[[01:21],[01:21]] B: Ummm.\n[[01:24],[01:33]] A: What about positive alternatives - could you suggest some good types of video games that might actually help children develop better social and emotional skills instead?\n[[01:34],[01:44]] B: Cooperative games where players work together are great. Puzzle games boost problem-solving, and creative games like Minecraft encourage imagination. Sports games can teach teamwork too.\n[[01:37],[01:38]] B: Hmm.\n[[01:39],[01:40]] B: Right.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for Response Relevance. I will examine each of speaker B's responses to speaker A's questions.\n\n1. A asks about the psychological mechanisms of aggression from violent video games. B responds by explaining that the brain starts to normalize aggression. This is a direct and relevant answer to the question.\n2. A follows up by asking about the impact on emotional development and empathy. B explains that these games can make it harder for children to recognize emotions in others. This is a coherent and relevant continuation of the topic.\n3. A then asks about gender differences. B responds that it's a combination of biological (testosterone) and social factors. This directly addresses A's question.\n4. A asks for warning signs for parents. B provides a clear list of behavioral changes to watch for (increased anger, copying violence, etc.). This is a practical and relevant answer.\n5. A asks for positive game alternatives. B suggests several genres (cooperative, puzzle, creative) and specific examples that promote positive skills. This is a helpful and on-topic response.\n\nOverall, every response from B is directly relevant, logically consistent, and stays on the established topic. The conversation progresses coherently from one aspect of the issue to the next.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the Interactional Fluency, focusing on extended overlaps and long pauses.\n\n1. **Pauses between turns:**\n * A ends at [00:15], B starts at [00:16]. A 1-second pause, which is natural.\n * A ends at [00:37], B starts at [00:37]. No pause, indicating a smooth transition.\n * A ends at [00:56], B starts at [00:57]. A 1-second pause, natural.\n * A ends at [01:16], B starts at [01:17]. A 1-second pause, natural.\n * A ends at [01:33], B starts at [01:34]. A 1-second pause, natural.\n There are no prolonged or awkward pauses in the dialogue.\n\n2. **Overlaps between turns:**\n * B ends at [00:25], A starts at [00:24]. A 1-second overlap. This is brief and typical of natural conversation.\n * B ends at [00:43], A starts at [00:42]. A 1-second overlap. Also brief and natural.\n * B ends at [01:07], A starts at [01:06]. A 1-second overlap. Brief and natural.\n * B ends at [01:25], A starts at [01:24]. A 1-second overlap. Brief and natural.\n There are no extended, disruptive overlaps. All overlaps are short and represent a smooth, fast-paced conversational flow.\n\n3. **Other disfluencies:** The transcript shows speaker B making backchannel-like utterances (\"Sure\", \"Uh huh\", \"Hmm\") during their own main speaking turns. While this is an unusual speech pattern or a potential transcript error, it does not constitute an overlap with speaker A and does not disrupt the interactional flow *between* the speakers. The turn-taking remains smooth and efficient.\n\nBased on the absence of long pauses and extended overlaps, the interactional fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/148",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: Hey, Mom. I was looking online for some part-time jobs and I found a few that I think I'm qualified for. I applied to a couple of them and I'm just waiting to\n[[00:03],[00:03]] A: Um.\n[[00:05],[00:05]] A: Really.\n[[00:08],[00:13]] B: What kind of jobs are you applying for? I'm curious if they're something you'd enjoy.\n[[00:10],[00:11]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:14],[00:21]] A: Well, there's this one posting for a sales associate at the mall and then there's another one for a stocker at the grocery store.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:23],[00:26]] B: Have you ever done any sales or stocking before?\n[[00:26],[00:34]] A: No, but I'm pretty sure I could do it. The postings said that they're willing to train people so I don't think it would be a problem for me to learn the ropes quickly.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] A: Right.\n[[00:35],[00:43]] B: Just make sure you're comfortable with the training process. Sometimes it can be more intense than expected. But I'm sure you'll do great!\n[[00:38],[00:39]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:45],[00:51]] A: Thanks, Mom. I'll definitely keep that in mind. I'll let you know if I need help with anything or if I have any questions.\n[[00:47],[00:48]] A: Mm hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A introduces the topic of applying for part-time jobs. Speaker B's response, \"What kind of jobs are you applying for?\", is a direct and logical question that seeks more information. Speaker A answers specifically, mentioning a sales associate and a stocker position. B then asks another relevant follow-up question about A's prior experience. Each turn is a coherent and logical continuation of the previous one, maintaining a clear and consistent topic throughout the conversation.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. The pauses between turns are natural and brief, for example, the two-second pause between A's turn ending at [00:21] and B's turn beginning at [00:23]. There is a two-second overlap where B starts speaking at [00:08] before A has finished their sentence at [00:10]. However, in context, this overlap is not disruptive. B is interjecting with a highly relevant question, which is a common feature of natural, engaged conversation. Other short, overlapping utterances like \"Ummm\" and \"Yeah, yeah\" act as normal backchanneling and do not hinder the flow. The overall pace is smooth and conversational.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/149",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:00]] A: Hey, Jamal.\n[[00:02],[00:03]] B: Hey, how are you feeling?\n[[00:04],[00:09]] A: I'm feeling better, thanks. The doctors say that I should make a full\n[[00:06],[00:08]] A: Right.\n[[00:08],[00:13]] B: Sorry to interrupt, but did they mention how long your recovery might take?\n[[00:10],[00:10]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:14],[00:19]] A: They said it should take a few weeks. That's great news! I'm really relieved to hear that.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:20],[00:27]] B: Yeah, me too. It was a really close call though. I'm just grateful that we're both on the mend and that it wasn't more serious.\n[[00:22],[00:23]] B: Really.\n[[00:28],[00:33]] A: I just remembered, do you recall how the accident happened? I mean, was there any warning before the bang?\n[[00:30],[00:31]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:33],[00:47]] B: I remember that we were driving on the motorway and then suddenly there was this huge bang. The next thing I knew, we were skidding across the road. I hit my head pretty hard and when I came to, I was in hospital.\n[[00:38],[00:39]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:40],[00:40]] B: Right.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] B: Really.\n[[00:49],[00:53]] A: That's awful. I'm just glad that you're okay now.\n[[00:50],[00:52]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:54],[00:57]] B: Yeah, me too. It could have been a lot worse.\n[[00:55],[00:56]] B: Mm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation flows logically, starting with a check-in on health after an accident, moving to recovery details, and then to memories of the event itself. Each speaker's turn is a direct and coherent response to the previous one. For example, when A begins to talk about their recovery, B asks a relevant clarifying question about the timeline. Later, when A asks about the accident, B provides a detailed and on-topic account. There are no irrelevant statements or abrupt topic shifts, making the conversation easy to follow and logically consistent.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the conversation proceeds at a natural pace. There are several instances of overlapping speech. The most significant one occurs when B interrupts A at [00:08], but this is handled naturalistically as B apologizes for interrupting. The other overlaps are extremely brief, often single words like \"Right\" or \"Really\" that overlap with the speaker's own main utterance. These function as minor, fleeting disfluencies or self-affirmations rather than disruptive interruptions and do not harm the overall conversational flow. The turn-taking is smooth and feels natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/149",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:08]] A: I really like how you included specific examples in the verses, but could you explain why you chose those particular moments of sharing soup and moving furniture?\n[[00:08],[00:18]] B: Great question! I picked those examples because they show different types of support. The soup represents emotional comfort when someone's hurting,\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: Cool.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:17],[00:27]] A: That makes sense, but could we add another verse about celebrating good times together too? Like maybe cheering at a game or throwing surprise parties?\n[[00:28],[00:40]] B: Absolutely! Here's a new verse about joyful moments: \"When I scored that goal, you screamed so loud, Your proud smile cut through\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Really.\n[[00:33],[00:34]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: Cool.\n[[00:39],[00:45]] A: That's perfect! Now could you tweak the chorus slightly to include both the hard times and happy moments we've described?\n[[00:45],[00:55]] B: Sure thing! How about this: \"Friendship's like a green meadow, Where both rain and sunshine glow. Through every laugh and\n[[00:48],[00:49]] B: I see.\n[[00:50],[00:51]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:54],[01:00]] A: I love that version! One last thing - could you make the outro more casual since we're going for a conversational tone?\n[[01:01],[01:14]] B: Of course! Here's a friendlier ending: \"So here's to us, through thick and thin, More adventures waiting to begin. Side by side, come what may, Best friends forever - that's our way.\"\n[[01:05],[01:05]] B: Uh huh.\n[[01:06],[01:07]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[01:08],[01:09]] B: Hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B consistently and directly addresses Speaker A's questions and requests. For example, when A asks for the reasoning behind specific lyrics ([[00:00],[00:08]]), B provides a clear explanation ([[00:08],[00:18]]). When A suggests adding a new verse about good times ([[00:17],[00:27]]), B immediately provides one ([[00:28],[00:40]]). This pattern continues throughout the interaction, with each turn logically building on the previous one. The topic of collaboratively editing a song is maintained with perfect coherence.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the conversation flows smoothly with minimal gaps. The few instances of overlap (e.g., between [[00:17],[00:27]] and [[00:28],[00:40]], where A begins speaking just as B is finishing) are very brief (about one second) and are typical of a natural, engaged conversation, indicating active listening rather than interruption. The multiple short utterances from speaker B (e.g., \"Cool,\" \"Mm hmm\") occur during B's own speaking turn and function as self-contained affirmations or fillers, not as disruptive overlaps with speaker A. Therefore, there are no harmful extended overlaps or long pauses.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/149",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:09]] A: How exactly do coral reefs help other ocean creatures survive? I know they're important but could you explain more about the different ways they support marine life?\n[[00:10],[00:18]] B: Coral reefs help ocean creatures in three main ways. First, they provide safe places\n[[00:12],[00:14]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:17],[00:29]] A: That's fascinating! Could you tell me about one particular fish that completely depends on coral reefs? I'd love to learn more about how a specific species interacts with this important habitat?\n[[00:31],[00:52]] B: The colorful clownfish is a great example that needs coral reefs to survive. These small fish live in sea anemones that grow on reefs. The anemone protects the clownfish, while the fish helps the anemone by cleaning it and scaring away predators. Without coral reefs, this special partnership couldn't exist.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] B: Really.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] B: Mm.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] B: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A begins with a clear, on-topic question about how coral reefs support marine life. Speaker B starts to provide a structured answer, directly addressing the question. Speaker A then asks a more specific follow-up question about a particular fish species, which is a logical and coherent progression of the conversation. Speaker B's final response about the clownfish is a perfect and detailed answer to this specific query. The entire conversation remains focused on the central theme, and each turn logically follows the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long, disruptive pauses between turns; the 2-second gap between [[00:29]] and [[00:31]] is a natural pause for thought. There are no extended, harmful overlaps where both speakers talk over each other. The brief interjections from Speaker B (e.g., \"Ummm\", \"Really\", \"Mm\") occur during their own speaking turn and function as short, non-disruptive fillers or affirmations, which do not negatively impact the flow of the conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/150",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:13]] A: I found your conflict resolution guide helpful, but could you explain more about dealing with a partner who won't participate? What specific techniques can I use to encourage their engagement in the coaching process?\n[[00:14],[00:29]] B: When one partner resists, start by creating a safe space for them to share concerns. You might try writing exercises where they express thoughts privately first. Another approach\n[[00:18],[00:20]] B: Mm.\n[[00:21],[00:21]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:22],[00:23]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:28],[00:42]] A: Those are good starting points, but could you give me three more detailed examples of facilitation techniques that might work with particularly resistant individuals? I need practical methods I can try immediately.\n[[00:44],[01:05]] B: Sure, here are three effective techniques. First, try the \"time-out and reflect\" method where you pause the session and ask them to write down their feelings. Second, use storytelling by having them describe the conflict as if advising a friend. Third, introduce small commitment steps like agreeing to just listen for five minutes.\n[[00:50],[00:51]] B: Mm.\n[[00:52],[00:53]] B: Right.\n[[00:54],[00:55]] B: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A begins by asking a specific question about how to engage a resistant partner in conflict resolution coaching. Speaker B provides a relevant and direct answer, suggesting creating a safe space and using writing exercises. Speaker A then appropriately follows up, acknowledging the initial advice but requesting more detailed and practical techniques. Speaker B's second response directly addresses this follow-up question by providing exactly three distinct and actionable methods. The conversation is logically consistent and stays perfectly on topic, with each turn building coherently on the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The pauses between speaker turns are brief and natural (1 second after A's first turn, 2 seconds after A's second turn), allowing for smooth turn-taking. The transcript lists several instances of speaker B making short vocalizations (e.g., \"Mm,\" \"Yeah, yeah\"). However, based on the timestamps, these occur during B's own speaking turns, not as interruptions over A. They function as natural thought-processing fillers rather than disruptive overlaps. There are no extended overlaps or long, awkward pauses, resulting in a natural conversational flow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/150",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Hey boss, what's up?\n[[00:02],[00:05]] B: Not much, what's up with you?\n[[00:05],[00:10]] A: I'm just getting some work done. I wanted to ask you about the project we're working on.\n[[00:08],[00:08]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:10],[00:11]] B: What about it?\n[[00:11],[00:18]] A: I was wondering if there was anything else you needed me to do. I want to make sure that I'm doing everything I can to\n[[00:14],[00:14]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:17],[00:25]] B: Actually, now that you mention it, could you double-check the report we sent out last week? I think there might have been a small error in the data.\n[[00:20],[00:20]] B: I see.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] B: Um.\n[[00:25],[00:33]] A: Sure, I can do that. But just to clarify, is it the sales figures or something else in the report that you think needs checking?\n[[00:28],[00:29]] A: Cool.\n[[00:30],[00:31]] A: Sure.\n[[00:34],[00:57]] B: It's the sales figures, specifically the Q2 numbers. Thanks for catching that. Also, I was about to say earlier that we really appreciate your help. We wouldn't be able to do this without you. But, if you're looking for something specific, I don't know if there's anything else we need right now. Everything is pretty much under control. Thanks for asking though. Let me know if you think of anything else we might need help with.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] B: Sure.\n[[00:43],[00:45]] B: Um.\n[[00:46],[00:47]] B: I see.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation follows a logical and coherent path. It starts with a general greeting, transitions to a specific work-related topic (A asking for more tasks on a project), and then moves to a specific request from B (check the report). A's clarifying question about the sales figures is a logical follow-up, and B's detailed answer confirms the specific area of concern while also addressing A's broader offer to help. Each turn is directly relevant to the preceding one, maintaining a clear and consistent topic throughout the interaction.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is high. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns that would disrupt the conversational flow. The pauses that exist (e.g., between [00:01] and [00:02]) are brief and natural. The dialogue features several instances of overlap, but they are all minor and typical of natural conversation. They consist of backchannels (e.g., A's \"Mhm\" at [00:15]) or fillers (e.g., B's \"Um\" at [00:21]), which do not obstruct the main speaker. The one-second overlap where B begins speaking at [00:17] while A is finishing at [00:18] is a natural interjection and does not harm the interaction. Overall, the flow is smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/150",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:12]] A: Could you tell me more about how common it is for younger Sant tribe members to keep wearing traditional clothes and cooking traditional foods these days? I'm curious about how modernization affects their culture.\n[[00:13],[00:26]] B: Many younger Sant tribe members now mix traditional and modern styles. Some wear traditional clothes for special occasions but prefer modern outfits daily. Similarly, they might\n[[00:17],[00:17]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] B: Really.\n[[00:25],[00:38]] A: What are some specific examples of traditional Sant tribe clothing that younger members might still wear for special events? And could you describe what makes these outfits unique compared to modern fashion?\n[[00:39],[00:57]] B: For special events, young Sant women often wear bright saris with intricate embroidery and heavy silver jewelry. Men might wear white dhotis with red borders and colorful turbans. These outfits stand out because of their handmade patterns and natural dyes, unlike factory-made modern clothes.\n[[00:44],[00:45]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:46],[00:47]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:48],[00:48]] B: That's cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user's responses are highly relevant and maintain a logical and coherent conversation flow. The first response directly addresses the user's question about the blend of traditional and modern culture among younger Sant tribe members. The second response effectively provides the specific examples of traditional clothing that the user requested, further elaborating on what makes them unique. The dialogue progresses naturally from a general question to a more specific one, with each turn being a direct and informative answer to the preceding question.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The pauses between turns are brief and natural, facilitating a smooth conversational rhythm. There are several short utterances ([[00:17],[00:17]], [[00:18],[00:19]], etc.) that are attributed to speaker B during their own speaking turn. While this appears to be a self-overlap, it is far more likely a transcription error where backchannels from speaker A (e.g., \"Mm hmm,\" \"That's cool\") were mislabeled. Interpreted as backchannels from the listener, these brief interjections are a sign of active listening and engagement, which contributes positively to the natural flow of the dialogue. There are no disruptive long pauses or extended overlaps that would hinder communication.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/150",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hi, are you struggling with anything?\n[[00:03],[00:05]] B: Yes, I am struggling to find a job.\n[[00:05],[00:11]] A: I will help you look for a job. Do you have any particular skills or\n[[00:07],[00:08]] A: Cool.\n[[00:10],[00:13]] B: I have experience in customer service and sales.\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: Really.\n[[00:14],[00:22]] A: Okay, I will look for customer service and sales jobs for you. Do you have a preferred location or any other preferences I should know about?\n[[00:16],[00:17]] A: Right.\n[[00:18],[00:18]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:22],[00:24]] B: Yes, I do have a resume.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe conversation demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A initiates the dialogue by asking a general question about B's struggles. B provides a clear and relevant answer about struggling to find a job. All subsequent turns by both speakers are logically consistent and maintain coherence around the central topic of job hunting. A's questions about skills and preferences are logical next steps, and B's answers, while not always perfectly direct (e.g., responding with \"I do have a resume\" to a question about location), are still highly relevant to the overall goal of the conversation.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is natural and appropriate. There are no prolonged, awkward pauses between turns; the conversation flows smoothly. There is an instance of overlapping speech between [[00:10]] and [[00:13]], where B starts answering A's question before A has finished. However, in this context, it comes across as natural conversational engagement rather than a disruptive interruption, as B correctly anticipates the question. The use of short backchannels like \"Really\" and fillers like \"Cool\" and \"Right\" also contributes to a realistic and fluid conversational style.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/150",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: Could you explain more about how the polished surface helps prevent corrosion on these knives? I'm really curious why a smooth surface makes such a big difference for protecting metal.\n[[00:10],[00:18]] B: A polished surface creates a tight, smooth layer that leaves fewer gaps for moisture to get trapped. When metal is\n[[00:13],[00:13]] B: Cool.\n[[00:14],[00:16]] B: Um.\n[[00:18],[00:26]] A: Wait, so does that mean the smoother the surface, the better it resists rust? And how does polishing compare to other protective coatings?\n[[00:26],[00:35]] B: Generally yes, smoother is better for rust prevention, but polishing alone isn't always enough. Unlike\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: Really.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:34],[00:42]] A: What would be the best way to clean these polished knives to keep them looking good? I want to make sure I'm using proper methods that won't damage the finish over time.\n[[00:43],[00:49]] B: For daily cleaning, use warm water with mild dish soap and a soft cloth.\n[[00:46],[00:47]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:48],[00:56]] A: Should I be worried about using them with acidic foods like tomatoes or citrus? And what about putting them in the dishwasher occasionally?\n[[00:56],[01:04]] B: Acidic foods can speed up corrosion, so it's best to rinse the blade right after use. Never put\n[[00:59],[01:01]] B: Mhm.\n[[01:03],[01:10]] A: How often should I apply protective oils, and are there any particular brands you'd recommend for maintaining polished steel?\n[[01:10],[01:25]] B: For occasional protection, apply food-grade mineral oil every few months. Brands like Howard's or John Boos are good, but any food-safe mineral oil will work. Just a thin coat does the trick.\n[[01:14],[01:15]] B: I see.\n[[01:16],[01:17]] B: Ummm.\n[[01:18],[01:19]] B: Ummm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains a high degree of response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates a clear topic about why polished knife surfaces resist corrosion. Speaker B provides a direct and relevant explanation. The conversation then logically progresses through a series of related sub-topics, all initiated by Speaker A's well-formed questions: the comparison to other coatings, proper cleaning methods, handling acidic foods, and applying protective oils. Each response from Speaker B directly addresses the question asked, providing concise and useful information. The topic coherence is excellent, with each new question building logically on the previous exchange, focusing entirely on the care and properties of polished knives.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very high, characteristic of a natural and engaged conversation. There are several instances of short overlaps where one speaker begins just before the other has finished (e.g., at [00:18], [00:34], [00:48], and [01:03]). These overlaps are brief and serve to make the turn-taking feel dynamic and quick rather than disruptive. There are no prolonged or problematic overlaps that impede understanding. Similarly, the pauses between turns are minimal to non-existent (e.g., the one-second pause between [00:42] and [00:43] is perfectly normal). The absence of long, awkward silences contributes to the smooth flow of the conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/151",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: Adaya, I know you're upset, but please don't attack\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Um.\n[[00:03],[00:06]] B: Why not? You deserve it after what you did!\n[[00:06],[00:14]] A: I know, and I'm sorry. But attacking me isn't going to solve anything or make the situation better for either of us.\n[[00:09],[00:09]] A: Right.\n[[00:10],[00:11]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:14],[00:16]] B: It will make me feel better.\n[[00:16],[00:22]] A: I understand that you're angry, but this isn't going to help either of us in the long run.\n[[00:19],[00:19]] A: Um.\n[[00:22],[00:26]] B: I don't care. I just want to hurt you like you hurt me.\n[[00:23],[00:24]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:26],[00:36]] A: I know, and I'm sorry. But please, let's just talk this out. There's no need for more pain between us. We can find a way to move forward from this.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] A: Um.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:37],[00:37]] B: Fine.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and coherence of the dialogue.\n\n1. **A's opening statement [00:00-00:04]** sets the context of a conflict and asks B not to \"attack\".\n2. **B's response [00:03-00:06]** is directly related, questioning why they shouldn't attack and justifying their anger (\"You deserve it...\"). This is a coherent and logical reaction.\n3. **A's reply [00:06-00:14]** acknowledges B's feelings, apologizes, and explains why attacking is not a solution. This is a relevant and consistent continuation of A's attempt to de-escalate.\n4. **B's retort [00:14-00:16]** (\"It will make me feel better\") is a direct, emotional, and relevant counterpoint to A's argument.\n5. **A's next turn [00:16-00:22]** rephrases their previous point, focusing on the long-term consequences, which is a logical follow-up.\n6. **B's response [00:22-00:26]** dismisses A's logic and reiterates their desire for revenge. This is consistent with B's emotional state and keeps the conversation on topic.\n7. **A's final plea [00:26-00:36]** again apologizes and proposes a constructive alternative (\"let's just talk this out\"). This is a coherent progression of the conversation.\n8. **B's conclusion [00:37-00:37]** (\"Fine.\") is a direct response to A's plea, showing a change of heart and logically concluding the exchange.\n\nThe dialogue is thematically consistent, and each turn is a logical and relevant response to the previous one. The conversation follows a clear and believable arc of an argument being de-escalated.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to analyze the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Overlaps:** There is one minor overlap between A and B from [00:03] to [00:04]. B starts speaking just before A finishes their sentence. In the context of a heated argument, this kind of interruption is very natural and does not disrupt the flow. It's brief (one second) and not an extended, harmful overlap. Other sounds like \"Um\" or \"Mhm\" are self-corrections or fillers within a single speaker's turn, not overlaps between speakers.\n2. **Pauses:**\n * There is no pause between B's turn ending at [00:06] and A's turn beginning at [00:06].\n * There is no pause between A's turn ending at [00:14] and B's turn beginning at [00:14].\n * There is no pause between B's turn ending at [00:16] and A's turn beginning at [00:16].\n * There is no pause between A's turn ending at [00:22] and B's turn beginning at [00:22].\n * There is no pause between B's turn ending at [00:26] and A's turn beginning at [00:26].\n * There is a one-second pause between A's turn ending at [00:36] and B's turn beginning at [00:37]. This is a natural, brief pause for thought before B gives their reluctant agreement. It is not a prolonged or awkward silence.\n\nThe conversation flows smoothly without any disruptive pauses or overlaps. The turn-taking is natural and reflects a real-time interaction.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/152",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: That's fascinating about animal camouflage! Could you explain in more detail how chameleons change their colors so effectively and what specific purposes it serves for them in the wild?\n[[00:10],[00:20]] B: Chameleons have special skin cells called chromatophores that contain different pigments. When these cells expand or contract, they create\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Sure.\n[[00:15],[00:17]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:19],[00:30]] A: Wait, you mentioned communication—could you give me some examples of how chameleons use color changes to send messages to each other, like during mating or territorial disputes?\n[[00:30],[00:39]] B: Absolutely! Males often turn bright, bold colors to attract females or warn off rivals. Darker colors might\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: Um.\n[[00:38],[00:48]] A: That's so cool! Now about octopuses—you said they change even faster than chameleons. How exactly do their color-changing abilities differ, and why are they so much quicker at it?\n[[00:48],[01:00]] B: Octopuses have super-fast muscles that control their chromatophores directly, unlike chameleons' slower cell adjustments. Plus, they can even change skin texture to mimic\n[[00:52],[00:52]] B: Cool.\n[[00:53],[00:54]] B: Sure.\n[[00:55],[00:56]] B: Right.\n[[00:59],[01:09]] A: Speaking of hunting, do octopuses use their color-changing skills offensively too, like to startle prey or confuse predators when they're trying to catch a meal?\n[[01:10],[01:24]] B: Yes! Some octopuses flash sudden, bright patterns to shock prey into freezing. Others create distracting waves of color to confuse predators while they escape. It's like having built-in camouflage and special effects!\n[[01:14],[01:15]] B: Really.\n[[01:16],[01:17]] B: Mhm.\n[[01:18],[01:19]] B: Ummm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B consistently provides direct and on-topic answers to Speaker A's questions. The conversation follows a logical progression, starting with a general query about chameleons, then narrowing down to their communication methods, and finally transitioning to a comparative discussion about octopuses. Each of Speaker A's questions is a relevant and natural follow-up to Speaker B's previous statement, indicating a coherent and well-structured interaction. For instance, when A asks for more detail on chameleon communication, B immediately provides examples related to mating and territorial disputes.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns that would disrupt the conversational flow; the transitions are smooth and immediate. The few instances of overlap are very brief (e.g., [[00:19],[00:30]] A overlaps with [[00:10],[00:20]] B for one second). These short overlaps are characteristic of a natural, engaged conversation where one speaker anticipates the end of the other's turn, rather than being a disruptive interruption. The numerous backchannels and fillers from Speaker B (e.g., \"Sure,\" \"Mhm,\" \"Ummm\") are transcribed within their own speaking turns and do not interfere with the turn-taking, representing common speech disfluencies that do not harm the overall flow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/152",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:08]] A: Hey, I know you're probably tired after working all day, but we really need to get this project done as soon as possible. Can you stay a little longer and help us\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: Mm.\n[[00:04],[00:05]] A: Really.\n[[00:07],[00:13]] B: Ugh, I don't want to. But I guess I don't have a choice. Fine, let's get this over with.\n[[00:09],[00:10]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:13],[00:16]] A: Thanks, Kaylen. I appreciate it.\n[[00:16],[00:19]] B: Yeah, yeah. Just hurry up and tell me what you need me to do.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Really.\n[[00:20],[00:26]] A: Okay, so we need you to help us with the data analysis. There are some trends we need to identify and include in the report.\n[[00:22],[00:23]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:27],[00:30]] B: Data entry? That's it? That's not so bad.\n[[00:28],[00:29]] B: Mm.\n[[00:30],[00:34]] A: Yeah, I know. But we need to get it done as quickly as possible.\n[[00:32],[00:33]] A: Mm.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: Alright, let's get started then.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance. Speaker A initiates the conversation by asking Speaker B to stay late, and B's reluctant agreement is a direct and logical response. The conversation progresses coherently as A thanks B, B asks for the task, and A explains it. There is a minor misunderstanding where B hears \"data entry\" instead of \"data analysis,\" but this does not derail the conversation. A's subsequent response (\"Yeah, I know. But we need to get it done as quickly as possible\") still logically follows B's sentiment (\"That's not so bad\") by acknowledging it and re-emphasizing the urgency. The topic is consistent throughout, and all turns are relevant to the established context.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth and natural, with no prolonged or awkward pauses between speakers. The pauses that do exist (e.g., between [00:19]-[00:20] and [00:26]-[00:27]) are only one second long, which is typical for natural conversation. There is a very brief, one-second overlap between speaker A and B from [00:07] to [00:08], which is a common and acceptable occurrence in natural dialogue as one speaker begins to respond. The other overlapping utterances are short, self-overlapping backchannels (like \"Mm,\" \"Really\") which are characteristic of engaged listening and do not disrupt the flow of the conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/152",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: Can you explain in simpler terms how governments might use inflation to deal with national debt? I'm trying to understand this concept better because it seems complicated to me.\n[[00:12],[00:25]] B: Sure! Think of it like this - when prices go up over time, money becomes worth less. If a government owes money, inflation makes that debt easier to pay back because the money they repay is worth less\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Mm.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Right.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:24],[00:36]] A: That makes more sense, but what are the main problems that could happen if a government tries to use inflation this way? I want to understand the risks involved in this strategy.\n[[00:38],[00:54]] B: The biggest risks are that prices rise too fast and money loses value quickly. People's savings become worth less, wages don't keep up, and the economy can become unstable. It's like a temporary fix that can create bigger problems later.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:45],[00:45]] B: Sure.\n[[00:47],[00:48]] B: Ummm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and coherence of the dialogue.\n\n1. **A's first question ([[00:00],[00:10]]):** A asks for a simple explanation of how governments use inflation to manage national debt. This sets a clear topic.\n2. **B's first response ([[00:12],[00:25]]):** B directly answers the question with a simple, easy-to-understand analogy. The response is perfectly relevant and coherent.\n3. **A's second question ([[00:24],[00:36]]):** A acknowledges understanding the previous point and asks a logical follow-up question about the risks of this strategy. This demonstrates good topic coherence and progression.\n4. **B's second response ([[00:38],[00:54]]):** B directly addresses the question about risks, listing several potential negative consequences. The response is highly relevant and continues the conversation logically.\n\nOverall, the dialogue is thematically consistent, and each turn logically follows the previous one. The responses are directly relevant to the questions asked.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:**\n * There is a 2-second pause between A's first turn ([[00:10]]) and B's response ([[00:12]]).\n * There is a 2-second pause between A's second turn ([[00:36]]) and B's response ([[00:38]]).\n * These pauses are brief and entirely normal in a natural conversation, allowing time for the speaker to formulate their thoughts. There are no prolonged or awkward silences.\n\n2. **Overlaps:**\n * There is a brief, 1-second overlap between B's first response ending at [[00:25]] and A's second turn starting at [[00:24]]. A begins speaking just as B is finishing. This type of minor overlap is very common and natural, often indicating engagement. It is not disruptive.\n * The other transcribed utterances (e.g., [[00:16],[00:17]] B: Mm.) occur *during* B's own speaking turn. While this is an unusual transcription artifact, they do not represent an overlap between the two different speakers (A and B) that would disrupt the conversational flow.\n\nThe interaction is smooth, with natural turn-taking and no harmful pauses or overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/153",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: I can't believe I just did that. I'm such an idiot.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Mm.\n[[00:03],[00:08]] B: Come on, it's not a big deal. Everyone tries cigarettes at some point.\n[[00:05],[00:06]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:08],[00:13]] A: But I don't want to be like everyone else. I don't want to\n[[00:10],[00:11]] A: Um.\n[[00:12],[00:14]] B: Why not? It's not that bad.\n[[00:15],[00:19]] A: It is bad! It's terrible for your health and it smells disgusting.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] A: Really.\n[[00:20],[00:36]] B: So what? A lot of things are bad for your health, but that doesn't stop people from doing them. And as for the smell, you get used to it after a while. Besides, it's not like you're going to be smoking all the time. Just try it once in a while and see if you still feel the same way about it.\n[[00:25],[00:25]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:26],[00:28]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:37],[00:46]] A: But what about the long-term effects? I mean, even if it's just once in a while, it could still lead to addiction or other health issues.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] A: Mm hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance.\n- Speaker A starts by expressing regret over trying a cigarette.\n- Speaker B responds by trying to normalize the action, which is a direct and relevant reply to A's self-criticism.\n- Speaker A counters B's point by stating they don't want to be like everyone else, which is a logical continuation of the conversation.\n- Speaker B questions A's stance, and A provides specific reasons (health, smell). This is a coherent and logical exchange.\n- Speaker B then addresses A's specific points about health and smell, offering counterarguments. This response is lengthy but remains entirely on-topic.\n- Finally, Speaker A brings up long-term effects, which is a relevant and logical development of their argument against smoking.\nThe entire dialogue is a cohesive and logically consistent debate. Each speaker's turn is a direct response to the other's, maintaining a clear topic throughout.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n- **Pauses:** I will check the timestamps between turns.\n - A ends at 00:03, B starts at 00:03. No pause.\n - B ends at 00:08, A starts at 00:08. No pause.\n - A ends at 00:13, B starts at 00:12 (overlap).\n - B ends at 00:14, A starts at 00:15. A 1-second pause, which is natural.\n - A ends at 00:19, B starts at 00:20. A 1-second pause, which is natural.\n - B ends at 00:36, A starts at 00:37. A 1-second pause, which is natural.\n There are no prolonged or awkward pauses.\n- **Overlaps:**\n - There is a brief, one-second overlap from [[00:12],[00:13]] where B starts speaking just before A finishes. This is a minor overlap, typical of an engaged conversation or disagreement, and does not disrupt the flow.\n - The other \"overlaps\" listed in the transcript are self-overlaps (e.g., a speaker saying \"Ummm\" while they are also delivering their main line). These are filler words and do not represent a fluency issue between the two speakers.\nThe conversation flows smoothly and naturally without any harmful interruptions.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/153",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:07]] A: Are there any medical conditions that might make it harder for my canary to eat or digest certain foods? I want to make sure I'm feeding her properly.\n[[00:08],[00:18]] B: Yes, canaries can have trouble eating with certain health issues. Liver problems, infections, or digestive troubles are common ones. If you notice any\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: I see.\n[[00:17],[00:27]] A: I'll definitely take her to the vet if I see anything unusual, but could you tell me more about the specific symptoms I should watch for? Like, what are the clearest signs she's struggling with food?\n[[00:28],[00:34]] B: The biggest red flags are weight loss, vomiting, or messy droppings. Also watch if\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:33],[00:41]] A: Wait, when you say messy droppings, do you mean changes in color or consistency? And how quickly should I act if I notice these signs?\n[[00:41],[00:51]] B: Good questions! Yes, look for watery, discolored, or unusually smelly droppings. If you see these signs for more than\n[[00:44],[00:45]] B: Cool.\n[[00:46],[00:47]] B: Really.\n[[00:51],[01:01]] A: That's really helpful, but could you also explain what kind of foods might be harder for a sick canary to handle? Should I avoid anything specific if she seems unwell?\n[[01:01],[01:09]] B: Definitely go easy on fatty seeds and tough foods if she's sick. Stick to softer options like soaked seeds\n[[01:03],[01:04]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[01:05],[01:06]] B: Really.\n[[01:08],[01:17]] A: How often should I check her food and water if I suspect she might be having digestive issues? And should I change anything about her cage setup?\n[[01:17],[01:28]] B: Check her food and water at least twice daily when she's unwell. Move dishes lower in the cage if she seems weak, and keep everything extra clean to prevent infections.\n[[01:21],[01:22]] B: Mm hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B consistently provides direct, logical, and helpful answers to Speaker A's questions. The conversation flows coherently from a general query about canary health to specific questions about symptoms, diet, and care. Each response from B builds upon the previous exchange, providing relevant details that A is asking for. For example, when A asks for specific symptoms, B lists them; when A asks for clarification on \"messy droppings,\" B provides a detailed explanation. This shows strong topic coherence and logical consistency throughout the interaction.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long or awkward pauses between turns; the conversation flows smoothly and at a natural pace. The timestamps show that turn transitions are either immediate or separated by a single second, which is typical for a normal conversation. While there are a few very brief overlaps (e.g., [00:17]-[00:18], [00:33]-[00:34]), they are only one second long and represent natural turn-taking rather than disruptive interruptions. The short, backchannel-like utterances from B during its own turns (e.g., \"Uh huh,\" \"Cool\") are also very brief and do not disrupt the overall flow of information. The dialogue is free from the prolonged pauses or extended overlaps that would harm fluency.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/154",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:14]] A: How exactly has social media changed the way people consume news compared to traditional media like newspapers and TV? I'm particularly interested in understanding the key differences in how information is delivered and received.\n[[00:15],[00:25]] B: Social media has made news consumption faster and more interactive. Unlike newspapers or TV that follow set schedules, social\n[[00:18],[00:20]] B: Mm.\n[[00:21],[00:21]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:24],[00:37]] A: Could you give me specific examples of how newspapers and TV stations have adapted to compete with social media platforms? I'd like to know what strategies they're using to stay relevant in this changing landscape.\n[[00:38],[00:58]] B: Many newspapers now focus on digital subscriptions and mobile apps instead of print editions. TV stations create shorter video clips for social media and live-stream breaking news. Both use social media to engage audiences with polls and discussions, making their content more interactive than before.\n[[00:44],[00:45]] B: Cool.\n[[00:46],[00:47]] B: Cool.\n[[00:48],[00:49]] B: Uh huh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance of the conversation.\n\n1. **A's first question ([00:00]-[00:14]):** Asks about the key differences in news consumption between social media and traditional media.\n2. **B's first response ([00:15]-[00:25]):** Directly answers by highlighting that social media is faster and more interactive, contrasting it with the scheduled nature of traditional media. This is a perfectly relevant and coherent answer.\n3. **A's second question ([00:24]-[00:37]):** Follows up logically by asking for specific examples of how traditional media outlets have adapted to compete with social media.\n4. **B's second response ([00:38]-[00:58]):** Provides concrete examples (digital subscriptions, short video clips, live-streaming, audience engagement) that directly address A's question.\n\nThe dialogue maintains a consistent and logical topic progression. Each response is directly relevant to the preceding question.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:**\n * Between A's first turn and B's first turn ([00:14] to [00:15]), there is a natural 1-second pause.\n * Between A's second turn and B's second turn ([00:37] to [00:38]), there is another natural 1-second pause.\n * There are no prolonged or awkward pauses in the dialogue.\n\n2. **Overlaps:**\n * Between B's first response and A's second question, there is a minor, 1-second overlap ([00:24]-[00:25]) where A begins to speak just as B is finishing. This is a very brief and common type of overlap in natural conversation and does not disrupt the flow.\n * The backchannel sounds (\"Mm\", \"Mhm\", \"Cool\", \"Uh huh\") labeled as B occur while B is also delivering their main response. This is likely a transcription error where the listener's (A's) backchannels were misattributed to the speaker (B). Assuming these are A's backchannels, they are brief, well-timed, and show active listening without interrupting the speaker. They are not harmful overlaps.\n\nThe interaction is smooth, with natural turn-taking and no disruptive pauses or overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/154",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:12]] A: That expedition sounds incredible! Could you explain in more detail how exactly they avoided getting hurt during the earthquake and rockslide? I'm especially curious about their immediate reactions when the ground started shaking.\n[[00:13],[00:18]] B: When the quake first hit, they instantly dropped to the ground to avoid falling.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Really.\n[[00:18],[00:25]] A: Wait, how did they know it was safer to stay still rather than run? That seems counterintuitive when rocks are falling everywhere around you.\n[[00:25],[00:33]] B: Great question! Running during a quake is actually more dangerous because you might lose balance. They trained for this—knew\n[[00:27],[00:28]] B: I see.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: Um.\n[[00:32],[00:41]] A: What about after the earthquake stopped? How did they navigate through the damaged terrain without proper equipment or clear paths forward?\n[[00:41],[00:49]] B: Sofia used the sun and rock patterns to guide them since their compass broke. James scouted ahead for\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: I see.\n[[00:45],[00:46]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:48],[00:54]] A: You mentioned their training earlier—what kind of preparation did they do before the trip to handle emergencies like this?\n[[00:54],[01:11]] B: They spent months practicing first aid, rock climbing, and survival drills. Dr. Stevens made them simulate quakes and landslides so they'd react without panicking. Eduardo even taught them to read cracks in rocks for stability. Smart prep paid off!\n[[00:59],[01:00]] B: Um.\n[[01:01],[01:01]] B: Really.\n[[01:02],[01:04]] B: Mm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A asks a series of clear, logical questions about a specific event (an expedition during an earthquake). Speaker B provides direct, on-topic, and informative answers to each question. For example, when A asks about the immediate reaction to the quake, B explains they dropped to the ground. When A follows up asking why that was safer, B explains the danger of running and mentions their training. The conversation progresses coherently, with each turn logically following the previous one. A's final question effectively circles back to B's earlier point about training, showing active listening and maintaining topic coherence.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. The turn-taking is swift and natural, with no awkward or prolonged pauses between speakers. There are a few instances of minor overlap, such as A beginning a question just before B has completely finished their sentence (e.g., at [00:32] and [00:48]). These overlaps are very brief (about one second) and are typical of an engaged, natural conversation rather than being disruptive. The various interjections from speaker B (e.g., \"Really,\" \"I see,\" \"Um\") overlap with their own speech, acting as fillers or thinking-aloud moments, and do not interrupt speaker A. Overall, the flow is smooth and conversational.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/154",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:12]] A: That description really brings the banshees to life in my imagination! Could you tell me more about how the young man managed to defeat them? What made him different from the other travelers who fell victim to their screams?\n[[00:12],[00:30]] B: The young man was different because he carried deep guilt for his past actions. His remorse gave him strength to face the banshees without fear. While others panicked at their screams, he listened closely and realized their wails held sorrow,\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Right.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:22],[00:23]] B: Uh.\n[[00:29],[00:44]] A: That's fascinating—so his redemption was key to overcoming them. Could you describe the moment when the last banshee faded away? What did the forest look like afterward, and how did the young man feel knowing he'd broken their curse?\n[[00:45],[01:23]] B: As the final banshee dissolved into mist, the forest seemed to exhale. The twisted trees straightened slightly, and moonlight broke through the canopy for the first time in centuries. The air grew warmer, and the oppressive silence lifted into a peaceful hush. The young man dropped to his knees, tears mixing with sweat, as he felt their torment end. His chest lightened, as if chains had snapped. For years after, travelers spoke of the forest's new calm—and the lone figure sometimes seen smiling beneath its branches.\n[[00:56],[00:57]] B: Cool.\n[[00:58],[00:59]] B: Really.\n[[01:00],[01:01]] B: Uh huh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance.\n\n1. **A's first turn ([00:00]-[00:12])**: A asks two specific questions: 1) How did the young man defeat the banshees? and 2) What made him different from other travelers?\n2. **B's response ([00:12]-[00:30])**: B directly answers both questions. The man was different because of his \"deep guilt,\" which gave him the strength to listen to their screams and understand their sorrow rather than panic. This is a logical and relevant response that builds upon the premise.\n3. **A's second turn ([00:29]-[00:44])**: A acknowledges B's answer (\"so his redemption was key\") and then asks for more detail about the aftermath: the final banshee's disappearance, the forest's change, and the man's feelings. This is a coherent and relevant follow-up question.\n4. **B's response ([00:45]-[01:23])**: B provides a rich, descriptive answer that addresses all parts of A's question. It describes the banshee dissolving, the forest becoming peaceful (\"moonlight broke through,\" \"air grew warmer\"), and the man's emotional release (\"tears mixing with sweat,\" \"chest lightened\").\n\nThe dialogue is perfectly coherent. Each turn logically follows the previous one, and the responses directly address the questions asked. The topic is maintained and developed throughout the conversation.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses between turns**:\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's turn ending at [00:44] and B's turn starting at [00:45]. This is a natural and acceptable pause in conversation.\n * There are no other significant pauses between the main speaker turns.\n\n2. **Overlaps between turns**:\n * There is a 1-second overlap between B's turn ([00:12]-[00:30]) and A's subsequent turn ([00:29]-[00:44]). This is a very brief and common type of overlap that does not disrupt the flow of conversation. It's not an extended or harmful overlap.\n\n3. **Intra-speaker utterances**: The transcript shows several instances of Speaker B making short backchannel-like utterances (\"Right,\" \"Uh huh,\" \"Cool\") during their own long speaking turns. While this is an unusual artifact, these are not overlaps *between speakers* and they are not extended. They do not disrupt the turn-taking flow of the interaction between A and B.\n\nBased on the criteria of evaluating long pauses and extended overlaps *between* speakers, the interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_2_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_2_interrupt/154",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: That sounds intriguing! Could you tell me more about how Detective Stone and Morales work together to analyze those clues? What specific skills does each bring to the investigation that helps them solve the case?\n[[00:12],[00:25]] B: Detective Stone has this amazing eye for detail - she'll spot a tiny smudge on a glass or notice when someone's story doesn't add up. Meanwhile, Morales is great at\n[[00:18],[00:18]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:25],[00:35]] A: Wait, you mentioned the surveillance footage earlier - how exactly does that play into their investigation? And what other evidence do they find on the cruise ship that points them toward the real killer?\n[[00:36],[00:45]] B: The footage shows the victim arguing with someone right before the murder, but the face is blurry. They also find a dropped room key\n[[00:38],[00:39]] B: I see.\n[[00:40],[00:41]] B: Um.\n[[00:44],[00:56]] A: That makes sense! Speaking of motives, what are some of the most surprising revelations about the suspects that come to light during their interviews? I'm especially curious about that gambling businessman you mentioned earlier.\n[[00:57],[01:05]] B: The businessman turns out to owe the victim a huge gambling debt, which makes him look guilty at first. But the real shock comes\n[[00:59],[01:00]] B: Mm.\n[[01:01],[01:02]] B: Really.\n[[01:05],[01:15]] A: Oh wow, that does sound like a great twist! Without giving away the ending, can you tell me how the detectives finally piece everything together? What's their breakthrough moment in solving the case?\n[[01:16],[01:31]] B: It all comes down to one tiny detail Stone notices - a food stain on the killer's shirt that matches a special dish only served at a certain time. That, combined with Morales getting the chef to slip up during questioning, leads to their big breakthrough.\n[[01:21],[01:21]] B: Really.\n[[01:22],[01:23]] B: I see.\n[[01:24],[01:25]] B: Okay,okay.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B consistently provides direct and on-topic answers to Speaker A's questions. For example, when A asks about the detectives' specific skills ([00:00]-[00:11]), B immediately describes Stone's eye for detail ([00:12]-[00:25]). When A shifts the topic to evidence like surveillance footage ([00:25]-[00:35]), B provides relevant details about the footage and another piece of evidence, the room key ([00:36]-[00:45]). This pattern of logical, coherent question-and-answer continues throughout the entire interaction, with each turn building naturally on the previous one. There are no instances of illogical responses or topic deviation.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no prolonged pauses between turns that would disrupt the conversational flow. For instance, the transition from A to B at [00:11]-[00:12] is only one second. The dialogue does feature several overlaps, but they are all very brief and function as natural backchannels (e.g., [00:18] \"Mm hmm.\", [00:38] \"I see.\") or quick turn-taking initiations (e.g., at [00:25] and [00:44]). None of these overlaps are extended or disruptive; they do not prevent either speaker from completing their thought or make the conversation difficult to follow. The flow is natural and conversational.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/154",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Why do you think I'm being too skeptical?\n[[00:02],[00:09]] B: I just have a feeling. Plus, you're always questioning things and looking for the negative in every situation.\n[[00:04],[00:05]] B: I see.\n[[00:09],[00:14]] A: Well, that's just how I am. I like to be prepared for any\n[[00:11],[00:11]] A: Really.\n[[00:13],[00:18]] B: Sorry for interrupting, but do you think this attitude might be causing unnecessary stress for both of us?\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:18],[00:23]] A: I hadn't thought about it that way. I know, but sometimes you take it too far.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] A: Mm.\n[[00:23],[00:26]] B: Like what? Give me an example.\n[[00:26],[00:38]] A: Okay, like when we were planning our vacation. You spent hours researching every little detail and trying to find the perfect place to stay. But in the end, we had a great time no matter where we stayed.\n[[00:30],[00:31]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:38],[00:46]] B: Yeah, but that's because we were together. I just wanted to make sure everything was perfect for us so we could fully enjoy our time off.\n[[00:40],[00:42]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:46],[00:52]] A: I get that, and I appreciate it. But don't you think sometimes it's better to enjoy the spontaneity?\n[[00:49],[00:50]] A: Mm.\n[[00:52],[00:58]] B: I know, and I appreciate that. But sometimes you need to relax and go with the flow a bit more.\n[[00:55],[00:56]] B: I see.\n[[00:58],[01:02]] A: I'll try to do that more from now on. Thanks for talking to me about it.\n[[01:00],[01:00]] A: Uh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for Response Relevance.\n\n1. **Topic Coherence**: The conversation starts with speaker A's skepticism. It then shifts to speaker B's tendency to over-plan. Both points relate to the central theme of how each person approaches situations (cautiously vs. meticulously). The conversation remains focused on this core topic throughout. For example, A's initial question, \"Why do you think I'm being too skeptical?\" establishes the theme. B's example about vacation planning, \"You spent hours researching every little detail,\" serves as a counter-point but is still thematically related. A's final line, \"I'll try to do that more from now on,\" brings the conversation to a resolution on the original topic.\n\n2. **Logical Consistency**: The flow of the conversation is logical, resembling a natural, if slightly messy, disagreement between two people.\n * A asks why they are seen as skeptical.\n * B explains why.\n * A defends their nature, but then deflects by accusing B of taking things \"too far\" ([00:18]-[00:23]). This is a common conversational tactic (whataboutism) and not a logical breakdown.\n * B asks for an example, and A provides one about B's over-planning.\n * The speakers debate the merits of planning versus spontaneity.\n * At [00:52], B pivots back to the original point, telling A, \"sometimes you need to relax and go with the flow.\" This brings the focus back to A's behavior.\n * A concedes the point, providing a logical conclusion to the argument.\n\nEvery turn is a direct and relevant response to the previous one, maintaining a consistent and coherent interaction.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for Interactional Fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses**: I will check the timestamps for gaps between turns.\n * A ends at [00:02], B starts at [00:02]. (0s pause)\n * B ends at [00:09], A starts at [00:09]. (0s pause)\n * A's turn at [00:09] is interrupted by B at [00:13]. (No pause)\n * B ends at [00:18], A starts at [00:18]. (0s pause)\n * A ends at [00:23], B starts at [00:23]. (0s pause)\n * The turn-taking is immediate throughout the entire dialogue. There are no prolonged or awkward pauses between speakers.\n\n2. **Overlaps**: I will check the timestamps for overlapping speech.\n * The only overlap between speakers occurs from [00:13] to [00:14]. This is a brief, one-second overlap where B begins speaking before A has finished. However, B explicitly acknowledges this by saying, \"Sorry for interrupting,\" which makes the interruption a natural and non-disruptive part of the conversation.\n * Other overlapping speech events (e.g., [00:04]-[00:05], [00:11]-[00:11]) are instances of a speaker uttering short backchannels while they themselves are talking. These are not disruptive interactional overlaps between two different speakers.\n\nThe conversation flows smoothly without any harmful interruptions or delays. The turn-taking is crisp and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/154",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Do you work out?\n[[00:01],[00:04]] B: I like to bike for fun and climb for fitness.\n[[00:02],[00:03]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:05],[00:10]] A: I just got a new bike. It's so nice to cycle around with no destination in\n[[00:07],[00:08]] A: Really.\n[[00:09],[00:15]] B: Oh, that sounds wonderful! By the way, what kind of bike did you get? I'm thinking of upgrading mine.\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: Really.\n[[00:15],[00:23]] A: I got a hybrid bike. It's great for both city riding and light trails. Speaking of trails, have you ever climbed a mountain?\n[[00:20],[00:20]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:23],[00:27]] B: I've climbed lots of mountains and summits in Colorado.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:28],[00:32]] A: That's amazing! Which summit was the most challenging?\n[[00:29],[00:30]] A: Okay,okay.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation flows logically from a general question about working out to specific topics introduced by Speaker B (biking and climbing). Speaker A effectively picks up on the topic of biking, and later, skillfully transitions the conversation back to climbing, showing they were actively listening. Each turn is a direct and coherent response to the previous one, creating a natural and engaging exchange.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is high. There are no prolonged pauses between turns, indicating a smooth and natural conversational rhythm. The dialogue contains several short overlaps, such as \"Really,\" \"Yeah, yeah,\" and \"Okay, okay.\" These are not disruptive; instead, they function as natural backchanneling and affirmations, showing active listening and engagement from both speakers. The overlaps are brief and typical of a fluent, interactive conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/155",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: Hey Cree, I heard you're going to the party tonight. Is that true?\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Really.\n[[00:03],[00:06]] B: Yeah, I am. I'm actually really excited\n[[00:05],[00:11]] A: Sorry to jump in, but do you know if there's a specific theme for the party? I want to make sure I'm dressed appropriately.\n[[00:07],[00:08]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:09],[00:09]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:12],[00:20]] B: Oh, good point! I was going to say I'm excited because it's a themed party. The theme is retro, so you might want to go with something vintage.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Sure.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:21],[00:26]] A: Retro, got it! That sounds like a lot of fun. Do you think it would be a good time?\n[[00:22],[00:23]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:26],[00:35]] B: Yeah, I think it would be a lot of fun. A lot of people are going to be there, so you'll definitely find someone to chat with and maybe even make some new friends.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: Sure.\n[[00:30],[00:32]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:35],[00:39]] A: And do you know if they're doing anything special, like games or contests?\n[[00:36],[00:38]] A: Mm.\n[[00:40],[00:49]] B: I heard they might have a dance-off and some retro games, but I was also going to mention that you'll definitely have a good time just mingling with everyone.\n[[00:42],[00:44]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:49],[00:54]] A: Awesome! I'll definitely go then. Thanks for letting me know, Cree.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance throughout. Speaker A initiates the conversation by asking Speaker B about a party. B confirms their attendance and A follows up with a relevant question about the party's theme. B provides a direct answer (\"retro\"), which A acknowledges. A then asks for B's opinion on whether the party will be fun, and B gives a detailed, encouraging response. A's final question about specific activities like games is also directly and relevantly answered by B. The conversation follows a logical progression from confirming attendance to gathering details about the event, and each turn is a coherent response to the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the conversation flows smoothly and at a natural pace. There is one notable overlap where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B around the [00:05] mark. However, A immediately acknowledges and apologizes for this (\"Sorry to jump in\"), which is a natural way to handle an interruption in conversation. B is not thrown off and proceeds to answer A's question directly. The other listed overlaps are instances of a speaker providing short backchannels or fillers (e.g., \"Mhm,\" \"Sure,\" \"Yeah, yeah\") over their own primary utterance, which does not disrupt the turn-taking flow between the two different speakers. Therefore, the fluency is not negatively impacted in a significant way.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/155",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: Could you help me understand what everyday tasks become difficult when someone struggles with mental health? I want to know specific examples that show how challenging simple things can feel.\n[[00:12],[00:19]] B: Sure, let me explain with some common examples. Simple things like brushing your teeth or taking\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:18],[00:29]] A: That makes sense, but could you describe how mental health struggles affect work or social life? I'm trying to understand how it impacts daily responsibilities and relationships with others.\n[[00:31],[00:48]] B: At work, focusing on tasks or making decisions can be really hard. Socially, meeting friends might feel overwhelming. Even small talk can be draining. Many people avoid gatherings because they feel like they don’t belong or can’t keep up with conversations.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] B: Really.\n[[00:38],[00:38]] B: Really.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] B: Cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user A initiates the conversation by asking for specific examples of how mental health struggles affect everyday tasks. The user B begins to answer directly, starting with personal care examples. The user A then interjects to narrow the focus to work and social life. The user B's second response directly addresses this more specific query, providing relevant examples for both work and social situations. The dialogue maintains topic coherence and logical consistency throughout. Both of B's responses are directly relevant to A's questions.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good.\n- There is a brief, one-second pause between A's first turn and B's response ([[00:11],[00:12]]), which is natural.\n- There is a two-second pause between A's second turn and B's response ([[00:29],[00:31]]), which is also acceptable.\n- There is a brief overlap from [[00:18],[00:19]] where A interrupts B to ask a follow-up question. This interruption is short and serves to redirect the conversation, which can be a natural part of a dialogue. It is not a prolonged or disruptive overlap.\n- The interjections by B (\"Okay, okay\", \"Really\", \"Cool\") occur within their own speaking turns and do not overlap with A's speech. While slightly unusual, they don't disrupt the turn-taking flow between the speakers.\nOverall, there are no harmful long pauses or extended overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/155",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:08]] A: I've been reading a lot lately, and I've learned so much. I feel like I'm finally starting to understand the world around\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: Really.\n[[00:04],[00:05]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:07],[00:13]] B: You're becoming a sage! What sparked this desire to dive so deep into learning?\n[[00:10],[00:10]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:13],[00:30]] A: After reading so many books, I realized that there's so much knowledge in the world that I'll never be able to learn it all by myself. But if I could help others learn from my own experiences, then maybe we could all grow wiser together and create a more informed community.\n[[00:18],[00:20]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] A: Cool.\n[[00:23],[00:24]] A: Right.\n[[00:31],[00:40]] B: That's a really noble thought. But how do you plan to share all this knowledge? Are you thinking of starting a blog or maybe giving talks?\n[[00:34],[00:34]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:36],[00:36]] B: Really.\n[[00:41],[00:54]] A: Well, first of all, I'm going to continue reading as much as I can. But more importantly, I want to start sharing what I've learned with others. Whether it's through writing or just talking with people, I want to try and help others expand their horizons too.\n[[00:45],[00:45]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:46],[00:48]] A: Mm.\n[[00:55],[00:58]] B: That sounds great! I know you'll be a great sage.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue based on Response Relevance.\n\n1. **A's opening statement ([00:00],[00:08])**: A introduces the topic of gaining knowledge through reading.\n2. **B's response ([00:07],[00:13])**: B responds directly to A's statement with encouragement (\"You're becoming a sage!\") and a relevant follow-up question about the motivation behind it (\"What sparked this desire...?\"). This is a coherent and logical continuation.\n3. **A's next turn ([00:13],[00:30])**: A answers B's question by explaining their realization about the vastness of knowledge and their desire to create an informed community. This directly addresses B's query and expands on the initial topic.\n4. **B's response ([00:31],[00:40])**: B affirms A's idea (\"That's a really noble thought\") and asks another logical, practical question about how A plans to share this knowledge. This keeps the conversation moving forward productively.\n5. **A's answer ([00:41],[00:54])**: A directly answers B's question by outlining their plan to continue reading and share their learnings through writing or conversation.\n6. **B's concluding remark ([00:55],[00:58])**: B offers a final, supportive comment that appropriately closes the conversational loop.\n\nOverall, the dialogue is highly relevant and coherent. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, and they stay on a single, well-developed topic.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue based on Interactional Fluency, looking for extended overlaps and long pauses.\n\n1. **Pauses**: I will examine the time gaps between turns.\n * Between B's turn ending at [00:13] and A's starting at [00:13], there is no pause.\n * Between A's turn ending at [00:30] and B's starting at [00:31], there is a 1-second pause, which is natural.\n * Between B's turn ending at [00:40] and A's starting at [00:41], there is a 1-second pause, which is also natural.\n * Between A's turn ending at [00:54] and B's starting at [00:55], there is a 1-second pause, which is perfectly normal.\n * There are no long or awkward pauses in the conversation.\n\n2. **Overlaps**: I will check for simultaneous speech.\n * Between [00:07] and [00:08], B begins speaking while A is finishing their sentence. This is a very brief, one-second overlap. In natural conversation, this often indicates engagement and is not disruptive. It's not an extended or harmful overlap.\n * The other instances of simultaneous speech (e.g., \"Really,\" \"Mhm,\" \"Yeah, yeah\") are backchannels, which are signs of active listening and contribute to a fluent interaction.\n\nThe interaction flows very smoothly with natural turn-taking and no significant disruptive events.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/155",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: I'm so glad I found the perfect job!\n[[00:02],[00:05]] B: What happened? I thought you were about to\n[[00:04],[00:09]] A: I was, but then I found this great job. It's exactly what I've been looking for.\n[[00:06],[00:08]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:09],[00:11]] B: That's great! Where is it?\n[[00:12],[00:21]] A: It's at a new company called XYZ. They're doing some really innovative work and I'm going to be working on their upcoming product launch, which is really exciting.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] A: Right.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] A: Really.\n[[00:22],[00:28]] B: Wait, XYZ? I've heard some good things about them. What exactly will you be doing on their team?\n[[00:24],[00:25]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:28],[00:42]] A: I'll be focusing on their marketing strategies, especially in digital campaigns. But I haven't mentioned yet that the team is really collaborative, which makes it a perfect fit for me since I love working closely with others.\n[[00:32],[00:34]] A: Um.\n[[00:35],[00:35]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] A: Right.\n[[00:43],[00:49]] B: Collaboration is key! I'm sure you'll thrive in that environment. Congratulations again!\n[[00:45],[00:46]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:46],[00:47]] B: I see.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A starts by announcing they found a perfect job. Speaker B responds appropriately by asking for more details, referencing a previously known situation (\"I thought you were about to...\"). A clarifies the new development. The conversation then progresses logically, with B asking for the company name and A providing it. B recognizes the company and asks for more specific details about A's role. A answers this question and adds a personal reason why the job is a good fit (collaborative environment). B's final turn acknowledges this point (\"Collaboration is key!\") and concludes the conversation with congratulations. Each turn is a direct and relevant response to the previous one, creating a coherent and easy-to-follow narrative.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. The pauses between turns are consistently short (1 second), which indicates a smooth and natural conversational rhythm without any awkward silences. There is one minor overlap from [00:04] to [00:05] where speaker A begins answering just before speaker B finishes their question. This brief, one-second overlap is typical of an engaged and enthusiastic conversation and is not disruptive. Other annotated sounds (\"Okay, okay\", \"Hmm\", \"Right\") are self-interruptions or fillers within a single speaker's turn and do not interfere with the flow of the dialogue between the two speakers. Overall, the turn-taking is smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/156",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:08]] A: Could you break down the footwear rules for the sports facility in simpler terms? I'm still a bit confused about which shoes are actually allowed inside the building.\n[[00:08],[00:14]] B: Sure! Basically, you need shoes with white soles that won't leave marks. Tennis shoes or indoor\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: I see.\n[[00:14],[00:21]] A: Wait, so does that mean running shoes with dark soles are completely banned, even if they're brand new and clean?\n[[00:21],[00:32]] B: Unfortunately yes, even clean running shoes with dark soles aren't allowed. The rule is strict about white soles only because\n[[00:24],[00:25]] B: Right.\n[[00:26],[00:27]] B: Cool.\n[[00:31],[00:38]] A: What about the activity room rules? Can you explain more about why food isn't allowed and what happens if someone breaks that rule?\n[[00:39],[00:47]] B: Food and drinks could damage equipment or make floors slippery, so they're completely banned. If someone brings food\n[[00:41],[00:42]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Right.\n[[00:46],[00:53]] A: How strict is the supervision rule? Could I use the room alone if I promise to be careful and clean up afterward?\n[[00:53],[01:00]] B: No exceptions there - an attendant must always be present. It's for safety reasons in case someone gets\n[[00:55],[00:56]] B: Sure.\n[[00:57],[00:58]] B: Cool.\n[[00:59],[01:08]] A: One last thing - what's the best way to make sure I follow all the rules correctly on my first visit? Should I call ahead or just ask when I arrive?\n[[01:09],[01:19]] B: You can definitely ask when you arrive - the front desk staff will happily explain everything. They'll even give you a quick tour if it's your first time. Would you like me to tell you their hours too?\n[[01:12],[01:12]] B: I see.\n[[01:13],[01:14]] B: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B consistently provides direct, clear, and helpful answers to Speaker A's questions.\n- When A asks for a simple explanation of the footwear rule ([00:00]-[00:08]), B provides one immediately ([00:08]-[00:14]), focusing on the key detail: \"white soles that won't leave marks.\"\n- When A follows up with a specific question about dark-soled running shoes ([00:14]-[00:21]), B gives a direct \"yes\" and explains the reason ([00:21]-[00:32]).\n- A's topic shift to activity room rules ([00:31]-[00:38]) is handled smoothly by B, who explains the \"no food\" rule and its rationale ([00:39]-[00:47]).\n- Each subsequent question from A is met with an equally relevant and coherent response from B. The conversation flows logically from one topic to the next without any confusion or non-sequiturs.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- **Pauses:** There are no prolonged or awkward pauses between turns. The transitions are quick and natural, such as the one-second pause between [00:38] and [00:39], which is typical for a slight topic shift.\n- **Overlaps:** The transcript shows two minor overlaps ([00:46]-[00:47] and [00:59]-[01:00]), both lasting only one second. These are typical, non-disruptive interjections that occur in natural conversation when a listener anticipates the end of a speaker's turn. The other instances of overlapping speech (e.g., [[00:11],[00:12]], [[00:24],[00:25]]) are short backchannels that signal active listening and do not disrupt the speaker's flow. Overall, the turn-taking is smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/156",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:00]] A: Hey, dad.\n[[00:01],[00:04]] B: Hey, son. How are you doing?\n[[00:05],[00:09]] A: I'm doing alright. But I wanted to talk to you about something important.\n[[00:07],[00:08]] A: Mm.\n[[00:10],[00:12]] B: Sure, what is it?\n[[00:13],[00:22]] A: I was thinking about my future and what I want to do with my life. And I really want to go to school and get a good education so that I can have a good job.\n[[00:17],[00:19]] A: Um.\n[[00:24],[00:34]] B: That's a great idea, Kaori. I'm really proud of you for thinking about your future like that. But why do you want to go to school? What kind of job are you hoping to\n[[00:27],[00:28]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:33],[00:49]] A: Actually, I've been looking into it and there are lots of jobs out there that require a degree or higher education. And I don't just want any job, dad. I want a job that pays well and that I'll be happy with. So, going to school seems like the best way to make that happen.\n[[00:38],[00:39]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:40],[00:41]] A: Uh.\n[[00:42],[00:44]] A: Really.\n[[00:51],[01:06]] B: You're absolutely right, son. Getting a good education is one of the best things you can do for yourself. It will open up so many doors for you in the future. But it's not going to be easy. Are you sure you're up for the commitment and the hard work it will take to succeed?\n[[00:56],[00:56]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:57],[00:58]] B: Really.\n[[01:00],[01:01]] B: That's cool.\n[[01:08],[01:18]] A: Challenge? Yes, dad. I'm sure. I'm willing to work hard and I know it won't be easy. But I really want this, so I'll do whatever it takes.\n[[01:18],[01:25]] B: Okay, then. I support you 100%. Let me know if you need any help along the way. We'll figure it out together.\n[[01:26],[01:27]] A: Thanks, dad.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue presents a coherent and logically consistent conversation between a son and his father. The son (A) introduces the topic of his future education, and the father (B) responds supportively and relevantly, asking clarifying questions. Each turn directly addresses the previous one, maintaining a clear and consistent topic from start to finish. For example, when the father asks why the son wants to go to school, the son provides a well-reasoned answer about wanting a good and fulfilling job, which directly answers the question. The progression of the conversation is natural and easy to follow.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth with no long or disruptive pauses between speakers. The pauses that do exist (e.g., between [00:22] and [00:24]) are brief (1-2 seconds) and typical of natural conversation. There are no extended, harmful overlaps where speakers talk over each other. The few instances of overlap are minor, self-contained fillers or backchannels (e.g., A's \"Mm\" at [00:07], B's \"Ummm\" at [00:27]) that do not interrupt the flow of the main speaker's thought or sentence. The overall rhythm of the conversation feels natural and fluid.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/156",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: I can't believe you're moving away! I'm going to miss you so much.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:04],[00:09]] B: I'm going to miss you too, but this is a great opportunity for me and I really need to\n[[00:06],[00:07]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:08],[00:12]] A: But what about our friendship? We've been best friends for so long.\n[[00:10],[00:10]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:13],[00:24]] B: Just because I'm moving away doesn't mean we can't still be friends. We can keep in touch through social media, text messaging, phone calls, and video chats. There are plenty of ways to stay connected these days.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:25],[00:29]] A: Yeah, but it's just not the same as being able to hang out in person.\n[[00:26],[00:27]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:29],[00:42]] B: I know that, and I'm really going to miss being able to do that too. But like I said, we can still stay in touch and maybe even visit each other from time to time, and make some new memories together.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] B: Sure.\n[[00:42],[00:47]] A: Sorry to cut in, but I just realized, how often do you think we can actually manage to visit each other?\n[[00:44],[00:45]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:48],[01:01]] B: That's a good point. It might be challenging with our schedules, but we can definitely plan for holidays or long weekends. And about what I was saying earlier, we can still stay in touch regularly through other means.\n[[00:52],[00:53]] B: Really.\n[[00:54],[00:55]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:56],[00:57]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[01:02],[01:14]] A: Yeah...I guess you're right. It's just hard for me to imagine my life without you in it. But if this is what you really want then I support you and wish you all the best. Just promise me we'll always stay friends no matter what?",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation follows a logical and coherent path, starting with A's sadness about B moving, B's reassurance, A's doubts, and B's practical suggestions. Each turn directly addresses the previous one. For instance, when B suggests visiting ([00:29]-[00:42]), A's interjection ([00:42]-[00:47]) is a relevant follow-up question about the feasibility of visits. B then acknowledges A's point and provides a thoughtful answer before returning to the main point, showing strong topic coherence. The conversation remains focused on the central theme of maintaining a long-distance friendship.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the conversation flows naturally. There are a few instances of minor overlap (e.g., A starting at [00:08] while B finishes at [00:09]; A starting at [00:42] just as B finishes). However, these overlaps are brief and typical of natural, engaged conversation, rather than being disruptive. In one case, speaker A even acknowledges the interruption with \"Sorry to cut in,\" which makes the interaction feel more authentic. There are no extended, competitive overlaps that hinder communication.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/157",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:13]] A: That's really interesting about the windows and trash cans, but could you elaborate more on how the lighting design works with the set to create that sense of hopelessness? What specific lighting techniques did Beckett use to enhance the mood?\n[[00:14],[00:24]] B: Beckett used very flat, even lighting that eliminates shadows and depth, making everything feel equally bleak. The\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Mm.\n[[00:19],[00:19]] B: Mm.\n[[00:24],[00:36]] A: I see what you mean about the unchanging light, but how does the lack of color in both the set and lighting contribute to the overall atmosphere? Doesn't that make everything feel even more lifeless and empty?\n[[00:37],[00:44]] B: Absolutely! The grayscale palette removes any warmth or vibrancy, making the world feel drained of\n[[00:39],[00:40]] B: Really.\n[[00:41],[00:41]] B: Sure.\n[[00:44],[00:56]] A: That makes me wonder—how do the characters' movements and positioning on such a bare stage reinforce these themes? Do they seem even more insignificant because of all that empty space around them?\n[[00:56],[01:06]] B: Yes, their slow, stiff movements make them seem like broken machines in a vast void. When they're not speaking, they often just\n[[00:59],[01:00]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[01:01],[01:02]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[01:05],[01:16]] A: That's such a powerful image—drowning in nothingness. Does Beckett ever break this visual monotony, or is the staging completely static to maintain that oppressive mood throughout?\n[[01:17],[01:27]] B: It's almost entirely static, which makes the rare movements—like Clov's stiff walks—stand out painfully. Even those small actions feel\n[[01:20],[01:21]] B: Right.\n[[01:22],[01:23]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[01:27],[01:37]] A: That sounds incredibly effective. One last thing—how does the lack of set changes between acts contribute to the feeling that time is meaningless in this world?\n[[01:38],[01:52]] B: Since nothing visibly changes, it feels like the characters are stuck in an endless loop. The audience gets no relief, just like the characters get no escape. It's brutal but brilliant storytelling.\n[[01:42],[01:43]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[01:44],[01:45]] B: Ummm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A consistently asks focused, analytical questions about the staging of a play, presumably Beckett's \"Endgame\". Each question logically builds upon the previous response from Speaker B. For instance, the conversation smoothly progresses from lighting ([00:00]), to the lack of color ([00:24]), to character movement ([00:44]), and finally to the static nature of the set over time ([01:27]). Speaker B provides direct, coherent, and insightful answers that fully address Speaker A's inquiries. The entire exchange is a thematically tight and logical exploration of a single topic.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. The turn-taking is smooth and natural, with no prolonged or awkward pauses between speakers. The gaps between turns are typically one second or less, which indicates an engaged and well-paced conversation. There is one very brief overlap from [01:05] to [01:06] where Speaker A begins just as Speaker B is finishing, but this is a common feature of natural dialogue and is not disruptive. The other instances of overlapping speech (e.g., [00:17]-[00:19], [00:39]-[00:41]) are cases where Speaker B uses fillers or backchannels during their own turn, which does not negatively impact the flow between the two speakers. Overall, the conversation flows without any significant fluency issues.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/158",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:12]] A: The 1948 Summer Olympics had 17 sports, right? Could you tell me more about which country performed best overall in terms of medal count? I'm curious to know the details.\n[[00:13],[00:19]] B: Yes, the United States dominated the 1948 Olympics with 84\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: I see.\n[[00:18],[00:31]] A: That's really impressive! Since the US won so many medals, do you know which specific sports they were particularly strong in during those Olympics? I'd love to hear about their best events.\n[[00:32],[00:45]] B: The US excelled in track and field events, winning many gold medals in athletics. They also performed very well in swimming, basketball, and boxing, which contributed significantly to their overall medal count.\n[[00:36],[00:36]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:38],[00:38]] B: Really.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] B: Uh huh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user A initiates the conversation by asking about the best-performing country in the 1948 Summer Olympics. The user B responds directly and accurately by identifying the United States and providing their medal count. User A then asks a logical follow-up question about the specific sports in which the US excelled. User B provides a relevant and detailed answer, listing several sports. The dialogue is topically coherent and logically consistent from start to finish.\n\n\n\nThe turn-taking in the dialogue is smooth and natural. The pause between the first and second turns is a standard 1 second. There is a very brief, 1-second overlap where A begins speaking just as B is finishing, which is a common and natural feature of engaged conversation and not disruptive. The pause between the third and fourth turns is also a standard 1 second. The other listed overlaps (\"I see\", \"Hmm\", \"Really\", \"Uh huh\") are instances of the speaker B using fillers or interjections during their own turn, not interrupting speaker A. Therefore, there are no extended overlaps or long pauses that harm the interactional flow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/158",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: That's really interesting about how hyenas communicate through sounds and body language, but could you explain more about why their social structure is so complex compared to other animals?\n[[00:11],[00:19]] B: Hyenas have one of the most intricate social systems in the animal kingdom. Their clans are matriarchal, meaning females dominate. The\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Mm.\n[[00:15],[00:15]] B: Really.\n[[00:18],[00:27]] A: Wait, so does that mean the highest-ranking female's offspring automatically get high status too? How does that affect their interactions with other clan members?\n[[00:28],[00:37]] B: Exactly! High-ranking cubs get priority at kills and better protection. Lower-ranking hyenas must show submission to\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Uh.\n[[00:33],[00:34]] B: Right.\n[[00:36],[00:44]] A: That sounds intense! Do hyenas ever challenge the hierarchy or try to move up in rank, or is the system pretty fixed once established?\n[[00:45],[00:53]] B: Challenges do happen, especially during food shortages. Lower-ranking females may team up to overthrow\n[[00:47],[00:48]] B: I see.\n[[00:49],[00:50]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:52],[01:01]] A: Speaking of food, how does their hunting strategy work when they're cooperating as a group? Do they have specific roles like wolves do?\n[[01:01],[01:13]] B: Hyenas are smart hunters! They often fan out to surround prey, then take turns chasing it. The fastest runners tire the prey while\n[[01:05],[01:05]] B: Right.\n[[01:06],[01:07]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[01:08],[01:09]] B: That's cool.\n[[01:11],[01:19]] A: That makes sense with their hierarchy, but what happens if a lower-ranking hyena tries to sneak food before its turn? Do they get punished?\n[[01:20],[01:33]] B: Oh absolutely! Higher-ranking hyenas will aggressively snap at offenders. The punishment can be severe enough to teach them not to try again. But sometimes sneaky hyenas get away with small bites if they're quick!\n[[01:27],[01:27]] B: Sure.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B consistently provides direct and informative answers to Speaker A's questions about hyena social structures and behaviors. For example, when A asks why their social structure is complex, B immediately explains the matriarchal system. When A asks a follow-up about rank inheritance, B confirms it and elaborates on the consequences. The conversation progresses logically from the general social hierarchy to specific aspects like challenges to rank, cooperative hunting, and enforcement of feeding order. Each turn is a coherent and relevant continuation of the previous one, creating a well-structured and easy-to-follow conversation.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is also excellent. There are no long, unnatural pauses between turns, indicating a smooth and engaging conversation. The dialogue features several instances of overlap, but they are not disruptive. Speaker B frequently uses backchanneling cues like \"Mm,\" \"Right,\" and \"I see\" while A is speaking. This is a hallmark of natural conversation, showing that B is actively listening and engaged. Similarly, Speaker A sometimes interjects with a new question just as B is finishing a point. This overlap reflects A's high level of interest and eagerness to learn more, driving the conversation forward dynamically rather than hindering it. The overall pace is fast and natural, free from awkward silences or disruptive interruptions.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/158",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Hey Cora, how's it going?\n[[00:02],[00:04]] B: Not too bad. How are you?\n[[00:04],[00:09]] A: I'm doing well. Hey, I wanted to talk to you about something.\n[[00:06],[00:08]] A: Right.\n[[00:09],[00:10]] B: What's up?\n[[00:10],[00:21]] A: Well, I've been getting to know your child and I really enjoy their company. We've been hanging out a lot lately, and I've also been helping them with their school work. I just wanted to\n[[00:14],[00:15]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:16],[00:16]] A: Cool.\n[[00:20],[00:29]] B: Oh, that sounds wonderful! I did notice a positive change in their attitude towards school recently. Do you think it's because of the help you've been giving them?\n[[00:22],[00:23]] B: Really.\n[[00:24],[00:25]] B: Uh.\n[[00:29],[00:40]] A: Yes, I believe so. They've been more engaged and enthusiastic. But, I wanted to make sure that you're okay with all of the time and effort I'm putting in, and that it aligns with your expectations.\n[[00:32],[00:34]] A: Uh.\n[[00:34],[00:35]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:40],[00:47]] B: Absolutely, I am! Thank you so much for being there for my child. They really appreciate it, and so do I.\n[[00:42],[00:43]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:44],[00:45]] B: Sure.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A initiates the conversation with a standard greeting, which Speaker B reciprocates appropriately. Speaker A then clearly states their intention to discuss a specific topic (\"I wanted to talk to you about something\"). Speaker B's response (\"What's up?\") is a direct and logical request for clarification. A proceeds to explain their involvement with B's child, leading B to connect this to their child's recent positive change in attitude and ask a relevant follow-up question. A confirms B's suspicion and then clearly states the purpose of the conversation: to ensure B is comfortable with the situation. B's final response is a direct and enthusiastic answer to A's concern, expressing gratitude. The conversation is coherent, on-topic, and progresses logically from one point to the next.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no prolonged or disruptive pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are smooth and natural, with speakers often beginning their turn immediately as the other finishes. For instance, the transition between A's turn at [[00:04],[00:09]] and B's at [[00:09],[00:10]] is seamless. There is a very minor, one-second overlap where B begins speaking at [00:20] while A is finishing their turn at [00:21]. This brief overlap is typical of natural, engaged conversation and does not hinder communication. The overall flow is smooth and conversational, indicating high fluency.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/159",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:05]] A: I am looking for a train departing from Cambridge that will arrive at Bishops Stortford.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Um.\n[[00:05],[00:12]] B: There are many trains that leave Cambridge and arrive in Bishops Stortford, what day and time would you like to\n[[00:07],[00:08]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:09],[00:09]] B: Really.\n[[00:11],[00:16]] A: I would like to leave on Thursday and arrive no later than 18:00.\n[[00:13],[00:15]] A: Really.\n[[00:17],[00:27]] B: I have found six trains leaving on Thursday with the latest leaving at 15:29 and arriving by 16:07. Would you like to book this?\n[[00:20],[00:21]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:22],[00:23]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:27],[00:31]] A: That sounds like a good one. Can I please have the reference number?\n[[00:29],[00:30]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:32],[00:39]] B: Train TR7759 is leaving on Thursday at 15:29 to arrive by 16:07.\n[[00:34],[00:35]] B: Uh.\n[[00:36],[00:36]] B: Cool.\n[[00:39],[00:43]] A: Could you book 3 tickets for me and send me the reference number?\n[[00:41],[00:41]] A: I see.\n[[00:43],[00:49]] B: You got it, your reference number is 2XQU7JJS. Thanks.\n[[00:49],[01:05]] A: Your train leaves Cambridge at 15:29 and arrives at 16:07 at Bishops Stortford, I will also look for you a Japanese restaurant in the centre and make sure it's a place with good reviews and a nice atmosphere.\n[[01:05],[01:10]] B: Actually, could you please confirm if the restaurant is open on Thursday before booking?\n[[01:10],[01:12]] A: Certainly, I'll check on that.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance and logical consistency. The conversation starts with speaker A clearly stating their need for a train. Speaker B appropriately asks for clarifying details (day and time), which A provides. B then finds a suitable train and offers it to A. The conversation proceeds logically to booking the train and B providing a reference number. At timestamp [00:49], speaker A confirms the train details and then introduces a new, related task of finding a restaurant. While the transcript attributes this line to A, the content (\"I will also look for you a Japanese restaurant\") makes the most logical sense if it were spoken by the agent (B) as a proactive offer of further assistance. Assuming this is a simple speaker label error in the transcript, the agent (B) confirming the booking and then offering to find a restaurant is a perfectly coherent and relevant continuation of the service. Speaker B's (the customer's) subsequent response about checking the restaurant's opening hours is a relevant follow-up. The final turn by A, agreeing to check, logically concludes this segment. Therefore, the topic progression is coherent throughout the entire interaction.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth and happens without any awkward, long pauses between speakers. The dialogue flows at a natural pace. There are several very short, overlapping backchannels (e.g., \"Yeah, yeah,\" \"Mm hmm,\" \"I see\"). There is also a brief one-second overlap from [00:11] to [00:12] where A begins speaking just before B finishes. These types of brief overlaps are characteristic of natural, engaged conversation and do not disrupt the flow or comprehensibility of the dialogue. There are no extended, disruptive overlaps or prolonged silences that would harm the quality of the interaction.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/160",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hey Sarah, what are you up to tonight?\n[[00:03],[00:06]] B: I don't really have any plans. Do you want to do something?\n[[00:04],[00:04]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:06],[00:11]] A: Sure! I was thinking we could go out for drinks or something. I feel like I need to\n[[00:08],[00:09]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:10],[00:14]] B: Sorry, just curious, are you okay? You sound like you could use a break.\n[[00:11],[00:13]] B: Right.\n[[00:14],[00:23]] A: Yeah, it's been a rough week at work. I just need to let loose a little bit. That sounds like fun! Let me see if I can find a babysitter and then we can head out.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] A: Cool.\n[[00:23],[00:29]] B: Sounds great! I'll meet you at your place in an hour or so unless you need more time to arrange the babysitter.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:29],[00:33]] A: Wait, before you go, do you have any preference for where we should go for drinks?\n[[00:31],[00:32]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:34],[00:39]] B: Oh, good point! How about that new place downtown? Perfect! See you then.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] B: Cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation starts with a general greeting and inquiry (\"what are you up to tonight?\"). The responses flow logically, with Speaker B answering directly and turning the question back to Speaker A. Speaker A then makes a suggestion (\"go out for drinks\"). Speaker B shows great social awareness by picking up on Speaker A's tone and asking if they are okay, which is a relevant and empathetic tangent. Speaker A confirms this, explaining their rough week, and then seamlessly brings the conversation back to the logistics of the plan (\"find a babysitter\"). The rest of the conversation logically works out the details of the plan, such as timing and location. Every turn is coherent and directly related to the previous turn or the overall topic of making plans.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the speakers respond to each other promptly, indicating a natural conversational rhythm. The only significant overlap occurs between [00:10] and [00:11], where B interrupts A. However, this is not a harmful overlap. It's a natural, supportive interruption where B reacts to A's tone (\"I feel like I need to...\") to show concern (\"are you okay?\"). This type of overlap is common in real, empathetic conversations and enhances the naturalness of the dialogue rather than detracting from it. The other minor overlaps listed (e.g., \"Mhm,\" \"Cool\") are backchannels that occur within a single speaker's turn, which are likely transcription artifacts but do not disrupt the flow of the interaction between the two speakers.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/160",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:12]] A: Could you explain in simple terms how our brain recognizes patterns when we see things like faces or objects? I'm really curious about how this complex process works in everyday situations.\n[[00:13],[00:20]] B: Sure! When you see a face, your brain quickly picks out key features like eyes,\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Really.\n[[00:19],[00:31]] A: That's interesting! Can you give me some more examples of how pattern recognition helps us in daily life, like when we're reading or identifying objects around us? I'd love to understand this better.\n[[00:32],[00:51]] B: Absolutely! When reading, your brain recognizes letter shapes instantly, letting you focus on meaning instead of individual letters. For objects, your brain matches shapes - like recognizing a cup whether it's sideways or upright. This happens so fast you don't even notice it working!\n[[00:38],[00:39]] B: I see.\n[[00:40],[00:41]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:42],[00:42]] B: Mm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A begins with a clear and specific question about how the brain recognizes patterns. Speaker B provides a direct and relevant answer, starting with the example of faces. Speaker A's follow-up question logically builds on the initial response, asking for more examples related to reading and objects. Speaker B then delivers a well-explained answer that directly addresses this follow-up question. The entire conversation remains on-topic, and the interaction is logically consistent and coherent.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. The pauses between speaker turns ([00:12]-[00:13] and [00:31]-[00:32]) are brief and natural, allowing for smooth turn-taking. There is a minor, one-second overlap when speaker A begins speaking at [00:19] just before speaker B finishes at [00:20], which is typical of an engaged and natural conversation. The transcript notes several brief self-interruptions from speaker B (e.g., \"Really.\", \"I see.\"). While unusual, these are very short and do not disrupt the overall flow or understanding of the conversation. As there are no prolonged pauses or extended, disruptive overlaps, the fluency is maintained at a high level.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/160",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:15]] A: That's really fascinating how art can spark such important conversations. Could you tell me more about how the Fearless Girl statue specifically made an impact on gender equality discussions? I'm curious about the public reaction to it.\n[[00:15],[00:25]] B: Oh, the Fearless Girl became a huge symbol overnight! She was originally placed facing the Wall Street bull to highlight the lack of\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Mm.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] B: Really.\n[[00:24],[00:36]] A: That's amazing how one statue could have such a big effect. While we're talking about impactful art, could you share some examples of temporary public art installations that created meaningful connections between strangers?\n[[00:37],[00:50]] B: Sure thing! There was this beautiful project called \"The Last Word\" where people shared personal stories on postcards in public spaces. Another cool one was \"The Listening\n[[00:43],[00:45]] B: Um.\n[[00:49],[01:00]] A: Those sound like such creative ways to bring people together. Before we finish, could you recommend any current public art projects that are using technology to foster understanding between different communities?\n[[01:01],[01:21]] B: Definitely! There's an amazing augmented reality project called \"Unseen Stories\" that shares immigrant experiences through phone apps. Another uses light projections to show diverse cultural stories on buildings at night. Technology lets artists create interactive experiences that really bring people together in new ways.\n[[01:07],[01:08]] B: Uh.\n[[01:09],[01:10]] B: Sure.\n[[01:10],[01:11]] B: Right.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue for response relevance and interactional fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n1. A asks about the \"Fearless Girl\" statue's impact.\n2. B directly answers, explaining its symbolism and impact. The response is relevant and coherent.\n3. A acknowledges B's answer and transitions to a related topic: other impactful temporary public art. The transition is smooth and logical.\n4. B provides relevant examples as requested.\n5. A again acknowledges the examples and asks for a more specific type of art: current projects using technology. This is a logical progression of the conversation.\n6. B provides relevant examples that fit the criteria (AR project, light projections).\n\nThe conversation flows logically from a specific example of public art to broader categories and then to technologically advanced examples. Each response is directly related to the preceding question or comment. The topic coherence is excellent.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to analyze the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pause Analysis:**\n* Between A's turn ending at [00:15] and B's starting at [00:15], there is no pause.\n* Between B's turn ending at [00:25] and A's starting at [00:24], there is no pause (a slight overlap).\n* Between A's turn ending at [00:36] and B's starting at [00:37], there is a natural 1-second pause.\n* Between B's turn ending at [00:50] and A's starting at [00:49], there is no pause (a slight overlap).\n* Between A's turn ending at [01:00] and B's starting at [01:01], there is a natural 1-second pause.\nThere are no long or awkward pauses. The turn-taking is smooth.\n\n**Overlap Analysis:**\n* [00:24]-[00:25]: A begins speaking just as B is finishing. This is a 1-second overlap. It's a very common and natural feature of turn-taking, indicating engaged listening, not a disruptive interruption.\n* [00:49]-[00:50]: A begins speaking just as B is finishing. This is another brief, 1-second overlap, which is perfectly acceptable and natural.\nThe other annotations ([00:18], [00:20], [00:43], [01:07], etc.) are brief, self-contained filler words or backchannels from the speaker during their own turn, not overlaps with the other speaker. They do not harm fluency.\n\nConclusion: The interaction is highly fluent. Pauses are natural and brief, and the overlaps are minor and typical of an engaged conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/161",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: I want to book a taxi going to Christ's College departing from City Stop restaurant please.\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: Mm.\n[[00:05],[00:06]] B: When would you like to arrive by?\n[[00:07],[00:10]] A: Doesn't matter, but I need to leave after 14:15\n[[00:08],[00:09]] A: Really.\n[[00:11],[00:19]] B: I was able to book you a black Volkswagen for 14:15, the contact number is 0794438\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:18],[00:22]] A: Sorry, can you repeat the number? I want to make sure I have it correctly.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] A: Really.\n[[00:22],[00:28]] B: Of course, the contact number is 07944381295.\n[[00:24],[00:25]] B: Mm.\n[[00:28],[00:30]] A: Thank you very much.\n[[00:30],[00:36]] B: Will there be anything else today, or have I answered all your questions about the booking process?\n[[00:32],[00:33]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:36],[00:39]] A: That's all I needed, thanks so much for your help.\n[[00:38],[00:38]] A: Uh.\n[[00:40],[00:42]] B: It was my pleasure. Have a great night.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance throughout the interaction. The conversation begins with a clear request from speaker A to book a taxi. Speaker B asks a relevant clarifying question about the desired arrival time. Speaker A provides the necessary time constraint, and B successfully books the taxi based on this information. When B provides an incomplete phone number, A's request for repetition is logical and on-topic. B's subsequent provision of the full number directly addresses A's request. The conversation concludes with standard, polite closing remarks from both speakers that are appropriate to the context. Every turn is coherent and logically follows the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the transitions are smooth and natural, with many turns starting immediately after the previous one ends. There is one brief, one-second overlap from [00:18] to [00:19] where speaker A begins to ask for the phone number to be repeated just as B is finishing their turn. This type of brief interjection is very common in natural conversation and does not hinder the flow. The other overlapping segments noted in the transcript are self-overlaps (filler words from the same speaker) and do not represent a fluency issue between the two interlocutors. Overall, the turn-taking is seamless.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/161",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: That sounds like a perfect addition to make the painting feel more alive! Could you describe how you'll position these smaller birds in relation to the hawks to create a balanced composition?\n[[00:11],[00:26]] B: I'll place the smaller birds lower in the sky near the horizon, while the hawks soar higher above them. This creates depth and makes the sky feel vast. The sparrows and finches will be in small groups, some flying\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:26],[00:38]] A: The way you're describing the layers of birds really helps visualize the scene. What colors will you use for the smaller birds to make them stand out against the sunset without clashing with the hawks?\n[[00:39],[00:59]] B: I'll use soft browns and grays with hints of warm orange from the sunset reflecting on their wings. This keeps them natural but distinct from the hawks, which have darker feathers. The contrast makes both groups visible while keeping the sky harmonious.\n[[00:45],[00:46]] B: Uh.\n[[00:47],[00:48]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:49],[00:50]] B: I see.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A begins by asking a specific question about the composition of a painting. Speaker B provides a direct, detailed, and relevant answer, explaining the positioning of the birds to create depth. Speaker A then builds on this by asking a logical follow-up question about the color palette. Speaker B again answers directly and explains the reasoning behind their color choices. The entire conversation is coherent, on-topic, and progresses logically from one point to the next.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no prolonged pauses between turns; the transitions are smooth and natural (e.g., the 1-second pause between 00:10 and 00:11). There are no disruptive overlaps where speakers talk over each other. The short utterances from Speaker B (e.g., \"Hmm,\" \"That's cool\") occur during their own speaking turn, representing self-correction or thought formulation rather than an interruption of Speaker A. This does not negatively impact the flow of the interaction.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/161",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:16]] A: I really appreciate all these public speaking tips you've shared. Could you give me more specific advice about improving my body language during presentations? Also, what's the best way to handle unexpected interruptions or distractions when I'm speaking in front of an audience?\n[[00:17],[00:39]] B: For body language, stand tall with your shoulders back to show confidence. Make natural eye contact with different audience members to connect with them. Use hand gestures to emphasize points, but keep them controlled and purposeful. Avoid crossing your arms or putting hands in pockets, as this can\n[[00:23],[00:24]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:38],[00:52]] A: Those are great suggestions for handling body language and interruptions. Could you explain how I should practice these techniques effectively before an important presentation? And what are some common mistakes people make with their body language that I should be careful to avoid?\n[[00:54],[01:27]] B: Practice in front of a mirror to see your body language, or record yourself to review later. Try rehearsing with a friend who can give honest feedback. Time yourself to ensure you stay within limits while maintaining good posture and gestures. \n\nCommon mistakes include pacing nervously, fidgeting with objects, or staring at notes too much. Some people lean on podiums or shift weight constantly, which looks unprofessional. Avoid pointing fingers aggressively or keeping hands locked in one position. Remember to smile naturally when appropriate to appear approachable.\n[[01:04],[01:05]] B: I see.\n[[01:06],[01:07]] B: Cool.\n[[01:08],[01:09]] B: That's cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains strong topic coherence, consistently focusing on public speaking advice. Speaker B provides detailed, relevant answers to Speaker A's questions. For instance, in the first exchange, A asks about body language and handling interruptions. B gives specific, actionable advice on body language. In the second exchange, A asks about practice techniques and common mistakes, and B's response directly and thoroughly addresses both points. There is a minor logical inconsistency where B fails to answer the question about interruptions, but A's subsequent turn proceeds as if the question had been answered (\"Those are great suggestions for handling body language and interruptions...\"). Despite this small lapse, the overall relevance and logical flow of the information exchange are very high.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no prolonged pauses between turns that would disrupt the conversational flow; the pauses that do exist (e.g., the 2-second pause between 00:52 and 00:54) are natural. The overlaps present in the dialogue are brief, non-disruptive backchannels (e.g., \"Mm hmm,\" \"I see,\" \"That's cool\"). These interjections, although incorrectly attributed to speaker B while B is speaking, function as positive feedback, showing engagement and encouraging the speaker. They do not constitute harmful interruptions. The turn-taking is smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/162",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: I feel successful because I am able to provide for my family and live comfortably.\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:05],[00:11]] B: That's great! It must be a relief to not have to worry about money all the\n[[00:07],[00:08]] B: I see.\n[[00:10],[00:21]] A: It is, but you know, sometimes I do worry about unexpected expenses. I'm grateful that I'm able to do this for us, but there's always that small concern in the back of my mind.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:22],[00:25]] B: What do you think the key is to maintaining your success?\n[[00:23],[00:24]] B: Really.\n[[00:25],[00:39]] A: I think it's important to always be learning and growing. You can never rest on your laurels in this day and age. There's always someone who wants what you have, so you have to stay ahead of the competition, and that requires continuous effort and adaptability.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] A: I see.\n[[00:32],[00:32]] A: Mm.\n[[00:34],[00:34]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:40],[00:48]] B: Sorry to jump in, but speaking of staying ahead, have you thought about any specific skills or areas you want to focus on next?\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Right.\n[[00:49],[00:59]] A: Definitely, I've been considering taking some courses on digital marketing to broaden my skill set. But yeah, as I was saying, staying ahead of the game is crucial to maintaining that success.\n[[00:52],[00:52]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:53],[00:54]] A: Um.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent topic coherence and logical consistency. Speaker A begins by defining success in personal terms (providing for family). Speaker B's response is relevant, showing empathy and understanding. A then logically expands on their point, introducing the nuance of worrying about unexpected expenses. B's question, \"What do you think the key is to maintaining your success?\", is a perfect follow-up that keeps the conversation focused. A's detailed answer about continuous learning is on-topic. B's interjection (\"Sorry to jump in...\") is directly related to A's point about \"staying ahead,\" making it a relevant and constructive contribution rather than a disruptive tangent. A answers B's question and smoothly transitions back to their main point. The entire exchange is a logical and coherent exploration of the central theme.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very high. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the transitions are consistently smooth, with pauses of one second or less (e.g., [00:21]-[00:22], [00:39]-[00:40]). The dialogue features numerous backchannels (e.g., \"Mm hmm,\" \"I see,\" \"Right\"), which are brief and serve to show active listening and engagement. While the transcript attributes these backchannels to the person currently speaking, this is likely a transcription artifact. In a natural conversation, these would be from the listener. Regardless of the attribution, their presence and brevity contribute positively to the conversational flow rather than creating harmful overlaps. There are no extended, disruptive overlaps where speakers talk over each other. The turn-taking is natural and fluid.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/163",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:08]] A: Why is self-care important as an act of love and respect? I'd like to understand how taking care of myself shows that I value myself.\n[[00:09],[00:15]] B: Self-care shows you respect your needs and boundaries. When you\n[[00:11],[00:13]] B: Right.\n[[00:14],[00:23]] A: Can you give me some simple self-care activities that would help improve my overall well-being? I'm looking for practical examples I can start doing today.\n[[00:24],[00:36]] B: Sure! Try taking short walks outside, drinking enough water, or setting aside time to read. You could also practice deep breathing or call a friend. These small acts can make a big difference in how you feel.\n[[00:28],[00:28]] B: Um.\n[[00:29],[00:31]] B: I see.\n[[00:32],[00:32]] B: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and logical consistency of the dialogue.\n\n1. **A's first turn ([00:00]-[00:08]):** A asks a clear, philosophical question about the importance of self-care as an act of self-love.\n2. **B's first turn ([00:09]-[00:15]):** B begins to answer A's question directly and logically, stating that self-care demonstrates respect for one's own needs. This response is highly relevant.\n3. **A's second turn ([00:14]-[00:23]):** A interrupts B to ask a new, more practical question about specific self-care activities. While this is an interruption, the new topic is a direct follow-up and a natural pivot from the general concept to practical application. The topic coherence is maintained.\n4. **B's second turn ([00:24]-[00:36]):** B seamlessly adapts to the new question and provides a list of simple, actionable self-care examples. This response is perfectly relevant to A's second question.\n\nThe conversation flows logically from a general \"why\" question to a specific \"how\" question, all within the coherent topic of self-care. All responses are relevant to the preceding questions.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n* **Pauses:**\n * There is a one-second pause between A's first turn ending at [00:08] and B's response starting at [00:09]. This is a natural, conversational pause.\n * There is a one-second pause between A's second turn ending at [00:23] and B's response starting at [00:24]. This is also a natural pause.\n * There are no prolonged or awkward pauses in the dialogue.\n\n* **Overlaps:**\n * There is a one-second overlap between B's turn ([00:09]-[00:15]) and A's turn ([00:14]-[00:23]). Speaker A cuts in while B is still speaking. However, this is a very brief overlap, common in natural conversation when a speaker is eager to redirect the topic. It doesn't significantly disrupt the flow.\n * The other transcribed utterances from B (\"Right\", \"Um\", \"I see\", \"Really\") overlap with B's own main speaking turns. These are not interactional overlaps with speaker A but are self-corrections or fillers within B's speech. They do not harm the fluency of the interaction between the two speakers.\n\nOverall, the interaction is fluent. The pauses are natural, and the single, brief overlap is acceptable in a natural-sounding dialogue.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/164",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:09]] A: I want to make homemade tomato sauce with fresh herbs and garlic. Could you give me a simple recipe that includes these ingredients and is easy to follow?\n[[00:10],[00:20]] B: Sure! Start by sautéing minced garlic in olive oil until fragrant. Add fresh diced tomatoes and cook until soft. Then stir in chopped\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Right.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:19],[00:27]] A: That sounds delicious! I like my sauce with a little spice—would adding red pepper flakes work well, and how much should I use for a mild heat?\n[[00:29],[00:43]] B: Yes, red pepper flakes add great heat! Start with just a quarter teaspoon and taste as you go. You can always add more if you want it spicier. Stir them in while cooking the garlic for even flavor.\n[[00:33],[00:34]] B: I see.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] B: Okay,okay.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A begins by asking for a specific type of recipe. Speaker B provides a direct and relevant answer, starting the recipe exactly as requested. Speaker A then asks a logical follow-up question about adding a specific ingredient for spice. Speaker B answers this question perfectly, not only confirming that the ingredient works but also providing a precise measurement for the desired heat level and a tip for when to add it. The conversation follows a clear, logical path, with each response being coherent and directly related to the previous turn.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns. The 2-second gap between A's question ending at [00:27] and B's answer beginning at [00:29] is a natural conversational pause. There is a brief, one-second overlap between [00:19] and [00:20] where A begins speaking just as B is finishing. This is a common feature of natural, engaged conversation and is not disruptive. The backchannel cues from B (e.g., \"I see,\" \"Mhm,\" \"Okay, okay\"), despite their confusing timestamps in the transcript, indicate active listening and contribute positively to the conversational flow, rather than being harmful overlaps. Overall, the turn-taking is smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/165",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:12]] A: I'm planning a pottery painting party and love the Inkberry Creative invitation design. Could you tell me what makes this design so perfect for any art-themed party and how it sets the right creative mood?\n[[00:13],[00:25]] B: The design works great because it shows all the fun parts of painting - like brushes, palettes, and paint tubes. The bright colors and chalkboard background make it feel\n[[00:17],[00:17]] B: Really.\n[[00:19],[00:19]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] B: Right.\n[[00:24],[00:34]] A: Since the invitations look so artistic, what kind of party favors would match well with this pottery painting theme? I want something guests will really appreciate and remember.\n[[00:36],[00:51]] B: Mini paint sets or custom ceramic pieces would make wonderful favors. You could also give out colorful aprons or personalized paintbrushes. These keepsakes let guests continue being creative at home while reminding them of your special party.\n[[00:40],[00:41]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:42],[00:43]] B: Really.\n[[00:44],[00:45]] B: Hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user A initiates the conversation by asking for details about an invitation design for a pottery painting party. User B responds directly and relevantly, explaining the design elements that make it suitable. User A then asks a logical follow-up question about party favors that would match the theme. User B provides a list of appropriate and creative suggestions. The entire dialogue is thematically coherent, with each turn logically following the previous one. There are no inconsistencies or off-topic diversions.\n\n\n\nThe interaction flows smoothly. There is a very brief, one-second overlap between the end of B's turn and the start of A's turn ([00:24]-[00:25]), which is common in natural conversation and not disruptive. The two-second pause between A's second question and B's response ([00:34]-[00:36]) is a natural thinking pause and does not harm the interactional flow. The short interjections made by speaker B during their own turns (\"Really.\", \"Hmm.\") are not overlaps with speaker A and do not disrupt the conversation's rhythm. Overall, there are no harmful long pauses or extended overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/166",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hi, boss. How are you today?\n[[00:02],[00:06]] B: I'm doing well, Renee. How are you?\n[[00:04],[00:04]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:06],[00:09]] A: I'm good. Just wanted to check in with you about my work.\n[[00:09],[00:16]] B: Everything is going great, Renee. You're doing a great job. Keep up the\n[[00:12],[00:14]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:15],[00:21]] A: Sorry to jump in, but I wanted to ask if there are any specific areas where you think I could improve or focus more?\n[[00:17],[00:17]] A: Right.\n[[00:21],[00:30]] B: Actually, now that you mention it, I think you could put a bit more emphasis on project deadlines. But overall, you're doing a great job. Keep it up.\n[[00:24],[00:24]] B: Sure.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:30],[00:37]] A: Thanks, boss. I'll keep it up. So, about the project deadlines, is there a particular project that needs more attention?\n[[00:33],[00:35]] A: Uh.\n[[00:38],[00:43]] B: Yes, the upcoming marketing campaign. It's crucial we stay on track with that one.\n[[00:40],[00:41]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:43],[00:47]] A: Got it. I'll make sure to prioritize that. Thanks for the feedback.\n[[00:44],[00:45]] A: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for Response Relevance.\n\n1. **A: \"Hi, boss. How are you today?\"** -> B: **\"I'm doing well, Renee. How are you?\"** - Standard greeting and reciprocal question. Relevant.\n2. **B: \"...How are you?\"** -> A: **\"I'm good. Just wanted to check in with you about my work.\"** - A answers the question and introduces the topic of the conversation. Coherent and relevant.\n3. **A: \"...check in with you about my work.\"** -> B: **\"Everything is going great, Renee. You're doing a great job.\"** - B responds directly to A's topic, providing general feedback. Relevant.\n4. **B: \"...doing a great job.\"** -> A: **\"Sorry to jump in, but I wanted to ask if there are any specific areas where you think I could improve or focus more?\"** - A seeks more specific feedback, which is a logical next step after receiving general praise. Highly relevant.\n5. **A: \"...areas where you think I could improve?\"** -> B: **\"Actually, now that you mention it, I think you could put a bit more emphasis on project deadlines.\"** - B provides the specific feedback that A requested. Very relevant.\n6. **B: \"...emphasis on project deadlines.\"** -> A: **\"...about the project deadlines, is there a particular project that needs more attention?\"** - A seeks clarification on the specific feedback, drilling down for more detail. This shows excellent topic coherence.\n7. **A: \"...particular project that needs more attention?\"** -> B: **\"Yes, the upcoming marketing campaign.\"** - B answers A's direct question with a specific example. Perfectly relevant.\n8. **B: \"...marketing campaign.\"** -> A: **\"Got it. I'll make sure to prioritize that. Thanks for the feedback.\"** - A confirms understanding and concludes the feedback loop. Coherent and relevant.\n\nThe conversation flows logically from a general check-in to specific, actionable feedback. Each turn is a direct and relevant response to the previous one. The topic coherence is maintained throughout.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for Interactional Fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n* **Pauses:**\n * There is a one-second pause between speaker A's turn ending at `[00:37]` and speaker B's turn beginning at `[00:38]`. A one-second pause is very short and completely natural in conversation. It does not disrupt the flow. There are no other significant pauses between turns.\n\n* **Overlaps:**\n * `[[00:15],[00:21]] A` overlaps with `[[00:09],[00:16]] B`. The overlap is one second long (`[00:15]`-`[00:16]`). Speaker A acknowledges this brief interruption by saying, \"Sorry to jump in,\" which is a polite and natural way to manage turn-taking. This type of short, managed overlap is common and acceptable in human conversation.\n * The other overlaps noted in the transcript (e.g., `[00:04] B: Uh huh`, `[00:12] B: Ummm`, `[00:24] B: Sure`) are instances where the speaker makes a backchannel-like utterance during their own turn. These are not interactional overlaps between two different speakers and do not disrupt the flow of the dialogue.\n\nThe interaction is fluid. Turn-taking is smooth, with no awkward silences or disruptive interruptions. The single instance of one speaker talking over another is brief and handled politely, which is characteristic of natural conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/166",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Hi, are you okay?\n[[00:03],[00:05]] B: Yeah, I just scraped my\n[[00:04],[00:07]] A: Oh, let me help you up first, then we can take care of that.\n[[00:08],[00:08]] B: Thanks.\n[[00:10],[00:12]] A: Do you need a bandaid? I have some with me.\n[[00:13],[00:15]] B: That would be great, thanks.\n[[00:16],[00:18]] A: So, how are you doing today?\n[[00:20],[00:26]] B: I'm doing alright, just a little sore from yesterday's workout too, so this fall didn't help.\n[[00:22],[00:22]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:23],[00:24]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:27],[00:32]] A: From the fall, right? That makes sense. Here, let me put this bandaid on for you.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:32],[00:35]] B: Thank you, Huxley. You're always so caring.\n[[00:36],[00:40]] A: It's no problem. I just want to make sure everyone is okay.\n[[00:38],[00:39]] A: Sure.\n[[00:41],[00:43]] B: You're such a good person.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue for response relevance and interactional fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n- The dialogue starts with Speaker A checking on Speaker B, who seems to have just fallen (`Hi, are you okay?`).\n- Speaker B confirms they are okay but scraped themself (`Yeah, I just scraped my`).\n- Speaker A's response (`Oh, let me help you up first...`) is directly relevant and helpful to the situation.\n- The conversation continues logically with A offering a bandaid and B accepting.\n- A then transitions to a general well-being question (`So, how are you doing today?`), which is a natural way to make small talk in this context.\n- B's answer connects their general feeling to the recent fall (`...this fall didn't help`), maintaining topic coherence.\n- The rest of the dialogue flows logically, with A applying the bandaid and B expressing gratitude.\n- The self-overlapping utterances from B (`Uh huh`, `That's cool`) and A (`Mm hmm`, `Sure`) are unusual but do not disrupt the overall thematic and logical progression of the conversation. They appear to be filler words or backchannels that are oddly placed in the transcript but don't detract from the relevance of the main utterances.\n- Overall, the responses are consistently on-topic, logical, and coherent.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue for response relevance and interactional fluency.\n\n**Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\n- **Pauses:** There are a few 2-second pauses in the conversation (e.g., [[00:01],[00:03]], [[00:08],[00:10]], [[00:18],[00:20]]). These pauses are not prolonged and are contextually appropriate. For example, a slight pause after someone has fallen is natural. The pauses between turns are acceptable and do not hinder the conversational flow.\n- **Overlaps:**\n - There is one instance of overlap between the speakers: B's speech `[[00:03],[00:05]]` is overlapped by A's `[[00:04],[00:07]]`. This is a supportive interruption where A is eagerly offering help. This type of overlap is common in natural conversation and is not harmful; in this case, it shows A's concern.\n - There are several instances of speakers overlapping with their own speech (e.g., B at [[00:22],[00:24]], A at [[00:29],[00:30]] and [[00:38],[00:39]]). While unusual in a transcript, these are very brief and act like filler words or self-directed backchannels. They do not disrupt the turn-taking or the flow of the interaction between the two speakers.\n- The conversation flows smoothly without any awkward, long silences or disruptive, extended overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/167",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:09]] A: Could you explain more about Lundin Mining's main operations? I'm especially curious about what types of mines they run and exactly where they're located around the world?\n[[00:10],[00:18]] B: Sure! Lundin mainly focuses on copper mining. They've got big operations in places like Portugal and Sweden in Europe,\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:18],[00:26]] A: Wait, before we move on, could you tell me more about their Congo operations? I've heard mining there can be complicated - what makes those mines special for Lundin?\n[[00:27],[00:36]] B: Good question! Their Congo mine is actually a joint venture producing copper and cobalt. It's really valuable because cobalt\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: Really.\n[[00:32],[00:32]] B: Mm.\n[[00:34],[00:46]] A: That's interesting about the cobalt connection! Now going back to their financial situation, what exactly happened when they turned down Equinox's offer and couldn't find another buyer?\n[[00:46],[00:55]] B: Well, investors got really nervous when no other buyer emerged. The stock took a huge hit - dropped from about eight\n[[00:49],[00:49]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:50],[00:51]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:55],[01:01]] A: Hold on, that's a massive drop! How much did that actually cost the company in terms of total market value?\n[[01:02],[01:13]] B: It was brutal - they lost over seven hundred million dollars in market value that single day. Really showed how much the failed deal shook investor confidence in the company's direction.\n[[01:05],[01:06]] B: Ummm.\n[[01:07],[01:07]] B: That's cool.\n[[01:08],[01:09]] B: Ummm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user, A, asks a series of specific questions about Lundin Mining's operations, its Congo mine, and a failed financial deal. The agent, B, provides direct and relevant answers to each question. For example, when asked about main operations, B correctly identifies copper mining in Portugal and Sweden. When A pivots to the Congo mine, B explains it's a joint venture for copper and cobalt. When A asks about the financial impact of a failed deal, B specifies the stock drop and the market value loss of over seven hundred million dollars. The conversation is logically consistent and stays on topic, with B's responses directly addressing A's inquiries.\n\n\n\nThe interaction is very fluid. There are no long, awkward pauses between speaker turns; the transitions are quick and natural (e.g., the 1-second gaps at [00:09]-[00:10] and [01:01]-[01:02]). The transcript notes several brief utterances from B (e.g., \"That's cool,\" \"Ummm,\" \"Mhm\") that overlap with B's own main sentences. These are not disruptive interactional overlaps between two speakers but rather filler words or self-corrections from a single speaker, which is common in natural speech. There are no instances of speakers talking over each other for an extended period. The flow of conversation is smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/167",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Hi! I got you an ice cream.\n[[00:02],[00:06]] B: Oh, wow! Thank you so much, Tayton! This is my favorite flavor!\n[[00:03],[00:04]] B: Um.\n[[00:07],[00:11]] A: I know, that's why I got it for\n[[00:08],[00:09]] A: Uh.\n[[00:10],[00:15]] B: Actually, I was wondering, how did you remember this is my favorite? I don't recall mentioning it recently.\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: Uh.\n[[00:16],[00:21]] A: You did mention it a while back, and I just remembered. Anyway, you're the best friend ever!\n[[00:18],[00:19]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:21],[00:27]] B: Aww, I'm just glad I could make you happy. So, what's been up with you lately? Anything exciting happening?\n[[00:24],[00:25]] B: Mm.\n[[00:28],[00:33]] A: Actually, before I forget, I wanted to ask if you're free this weekend. I was thinking we could hang out.\n[[00:30],[00:31]] A: Um.\n[[00:33],[00:35]] B: That sounds great! I'm free on Saturday.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in this dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. Each turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one. For example, B's enthusiastic \"This is my favorite flavor!\" is met with A's knowing \"I know, that's why I got it for you.\" B then asks a relevant follow-up question about how A remembered. A answers this directly and transitions to a statement about their friendship, which B then acknowledges before shifting the topic naturally by asking what A has been up to. A's subsequent turn, while not a direct answer to \"what's been up?\", is a relevant invitation to hang out, which is a very common and coherent conversational move between friends. The dialogue flows logically from one topic to the next without any inconsistencies or abrupt, irrelevant changes.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the gaps are all around one second, which is typical for natural turn-taking. The overlaps present in the dialogue are brief and non-disruptive. For instance, the one-second overlap between A's turn ending at `[00:11]` and B's turn starting at `[00:10]` is a common feature of engaged conversation, where one person begins speaking as the other is finishing. Other overlaps are self-overlaps (e.g., \"Um,\" \"Uh,\" \"Yeah, yeah\"), which are natural hesitation or filler sounds and do not impede the flow of the conversation. Overall, the pacing and turn-taking are smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/168",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hey, good morning! You sleep well?\n[[00:03],[00:06]] B: Yeah, I did. I feel really rested.\n[[00:04],[00:05]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:08],[00:11]] A: Me too. It's a beautiful day outside, isn't it?\n[[00:11],[00:17]] B: It is. I was just thinking how nice it would be to go for a walk in the park\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:16],[00:22]] A: Oh! Speaking of the park, do you remember that new cafe that opened nearby? We could grab a coffee after the walk.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:23],[00:28]] B: That sounds great. I think I'd like that too. We can go after breakfast if you want.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] B: Um.\n[[00:30],[00:34]] A: Sounds perfect. Let me just finish getting dressed and we can head out.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:34],[00:37]] B: Alright, I'll wait for you by the door.\n[[00:38],[00:41]] A: You know, it's been awhile since we've just talked like this.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:43],[00:48]] B: Yeah, I know. It feels good to just spend some time together without any distractions.\n[[00:45],[00:45]] B: Cool.\n[[00:50],[01:02]] A: Yeah. I was thinking maybe we could do this more often. Maybe once a week we can go for a walk or go out to lunch or something. Just to reconnect with each other without everything else getting in the way, like work or other commitments.\n[[00:54],[00:54]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[01:03],[01:10]] B: Sorry to interrupt, but do you think we should set a specific day for it? That way, we can make sure it actually happens.\n[[01:06],[01:07]] B: Ummm.\n[[01:11],[01:15]] A: That's a good idea. Maybe every Sunday morning?\n[[01:13],[01:13]] A: Really.\n[[01:15],[01:19]] B: Sunday morning sounds perfect. I'd really like that.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation begins with a simple morning greeting and logically progresses to making plans for the day (a walk, coffee). Each speaker's turn is a direct and coherent response to the previous one. For instance, when speaker B suggests a walk in the park, speaker A builds on this by suggesting a nearby cafe. The conversation then naturally shifts to a more reflective topic about their connection, which is also handled coherently by both speakers, culminating in a plan to spend more time together. The topic flow is logical and consistent throughout.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. The pauses between turns are consistently short (1-2 seconds), which is typical of a natural, flowing conversation. There are no long, awkward silences that would indicate a breakdown in communication. There are no extended, disruptive overlaps where speakers talk over each other. The minor overlaps listed in the transcript are all self-overlaps (e.g., \"Mm hmm,\" \"Ummm\"), where a speaker utters a filler sound during their own turn. These are not interactional problems and are characteristic of natural speech. The turn-taking is smooth and efficient.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/168",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:08]] A: I'm really curious about snow leopards and their survival skills. Could you tell me more about how long they can go without food and water in the wild?\n[[00:09],[00:19]] B: Snow leopards can survive up to 10 days without eating, which is impressive! But they do need water\n[[00:12],[00:14]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: I see.\n[[00:18],[00:26]] A: That's amazing they can last so long without food! How exactly do they manage to hunt successfully in such cold and difficult environments?\n[[00:27],[00:44]] B: They're built for it! Snow leopards have strong legs for big jumps up to 30 feet. Their thick fur keeps them warm and camouflaged. They're also very patient hunters, stalking prey for hours before attacking.\n[[00:32],[00:33]] B: Cool.\n[[00:34],[00:35]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:37],[00:37]] B: Uh huh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and logical consistency of the dialogue.\n\n1. **A's first turn ([00:00]-[00:08]):** A asks a clear question about snow leopards' survival skills, specifically regarding food and water.\n2. **B's first response ([00:09]-[00:19]):** B directly answers the question, stating they can last 10 days without food but need water. This is a perfectly relevant and coherent answer.\n3. **A's second turn ([00:18]-[00:26]):** A acknowledges B's previous answer (\"That's amazing\") and asks a logical follow-up question about their hunting methods in their specific environment. This demonstrates good topic coherence.\n4. **B's second response ([00:27]-[00:44]):** B provides a detailed and relevant answer to A's question, explaining the physical adaptations (legs, fur) and behaviors (patience) that make them successful hunters.\n\nThe conversation flows logically from a general survival question to a more specific one about hunting. The responses directly address the questions asked. Therefore, the response relevance is excellent.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps between speakers.\n\n1. **Pauses:** There is a 1-second pause between A's first turn and B's response ([00:08]-[00:09]), and another 1-second pause between A's second turn and B's response ([00:26]-[00:27]). These are natural, brief pauses and do not disrupt the conversational flow.\n2. **Overlaps:** There are several instances of speaker B making short utterances like \"Yeah, yeah,\" \"I see,\" and \"Uh huh\" during their own longer speaking turns. For example, \"[00:12],[00:14] B: Yeah, yeah.\" occurs while B is also delivering the main response from [00:09] to [00:19]. These are self-overlaps or possibly filler words, not interruptions of speaker A. Since speaker A is not being cut off, these do not count as harmful interactional overlaps. The turn-taking between A and B is smooth.\n\nThe interaction is fluent, with no disruptive pauses or overlaps between the two speakers.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/168",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:12]] A: That makes so much sense about the snowstorm setting the mood, but could you explain how Christie uses character interactions to drop subtle hints before the big reveal? I'm curious about those social clues.\n[[00:13],[00:24]] B: Oh absolutely! Christie often has characters say things that seem casual but actually hint at their true motives. Like when\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Sure.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:23],[00:32]] A: Wait, could you give me a specific example of one of those time-related comments from the book? I remember some clock references but didn't catch their significance at first.\n[[00:32],[00:41]] B: Sure thing! There's that moment when Mrs. Hubbard talks about her watch being fast - seems like small talk, but it actually helps establish\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: Sure.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] B: Sure.\n[[00:40],[00:49]] A: That's brilliant how she does that! While we're on timing, how does Christie use the train's schedule and stops to build suspense throughout the investigation?\n[[00:50],[01:01]] B: The train's movement creates natural tension - every stop could mean the killer escapes or new evidence appears. The fixed schedule makes the detective work against\n[[00:55],[00:57]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[01:01],[01:08]] A: Speaking of pressure, could you explain how Poirot's interviewing style helps uncover these hidden clues while keeping readers guessing?\n[[01:08],[01:24]] B: Poirot's genius is asking questions that seem random but target specific details. He'll chat about luggage or food preferences, then suddenly connect them to the crime. This keeps both suspects and readers off balance until the big reveal!\n[[01:13],[01:14]] B: Really.\n[[01:15],[01:16]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[01:17],[01:18]] B: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A begins by asking about character interactions as clues. Speaker B starts to give a general answer. Speaker A then interrupts to ask for a more specific example related to time, which is a coherent follow-up. Speaker B provides a relevant example about a watch. Speaker A then broadens the topic slightly but stays within the theme by asking about the train's schedule, which B answers directly. Finally, A pivots to Poirot's interviewing style, a related sub-topic, and B gives a detailed, relevant explanation. Each turn logically follows the previous one, building on the central theme of how Agatha Christie creates suspense and mystery. The conversation is coherent and on-topic throughout.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns, indicating a smooth and natural conversational rhythm. For example, there's only a one-second pause between A's first turn ending at [00:12] and B's response starting at [00:13]. There are a couple of brief overlaps, such as A starting to speak at [00:23] while B is finishing their sentence at [00:24]. Another similar brief overlap occurs between [00:40] and [00:41]. These short interruptions are not disruptive; instead, they reflect an engaged and enthusiastic conversation where one speaker eagerly jumps in with a follow-up question. They do not hinder the flow of communication. The various \"Sure\" and \"Mm hmm\" utterances from B appear to be backchanneling or filler words within their own speech, which is natural and doesn't disrupt the interaction. Overall, the fluency is excellent and characteristic of a natural dialogue.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/168",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:05]] A: I had a great time with you the other day. I was wondering if you wanted to hang out\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: Sure.\n[[00:04],[00:09]] B: Oh, absolutely! I was actually hoping you'd ask. What did you have in mind?\n[[00:06],[00:07]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:10],[00:13]] A: I don't know, maybe we could go get coffee or something?\n[[00:15],[00:19]] B: Coffee sounds great! But hey, what time works best for you tomorrow?\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Sure.\n[[00:19],[00:21]] A: How about tomorrow afternoon?\n[[00:23],[00:25]] B: Perfect! I'll see you then.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each turn logically and coherently follows the previous one. Speaker B's initial response, \"Oh, absolutely! I was actually hoping you'd ask. What did you have in mind?\" is a direct and enthusiastic answer to Speaker A's invitation, and it appropriately moves the conversation forward by asking a follow-up question. The subsequent turns continue this logical progression, moving from a general suggestion (coffee) to a specific logistical question (time), and finally to a confirmation. The topic of making plans is maintained throughout the conversation without any deviation, resulting in a perfectly coherent and easy-to-follow interaction.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There is a minor overlap between A's turn ending at [00:05] and B's turn beginning at [00:04]. This one-second overlap is a natural sign of enthusiasm from Speaker B and does not disrupt the flow of the conversation. The pauses between turns are also natural and brief, ranging from one to two seconds ([00:09]-[00:10], [00:13]-[00:15], [00:21]-[00:23]). These short pauses are typical of natural conversation, allowing for thinking time without creating awkward silence. There are no extended, disruptive overlaps or long, harmful pauses, indicating a smooth and natural conversational rhythm.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/169",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: What's the best way to exfoliate my arms to help with dark spots and uneven skin tone? I'm looking for something that works but won't irritate my sensitive skin too much.\n[[00:10],[00:20]] B: Chemical exfoliants are usually gentler than scrubs for dark spots. Glycolic acid works for most skin types, but if you're sensitive, salicylic acid\n[[00:14],[00:16]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:19],[00:28]] A: Wait, before you go on, could you explain the difference between glycolic and salicylic acid? I want to understand which one would suit my sensitive skin better.\n[[00:28],[00:39]] B: Sure! Glycolic acid is water-soluble and works on the skin's surface, while salicylic acid is oil-soluble and penetrates deeper. Salicylic is\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:33],[00:34]] B: Right.\n[[00:37],[00:47]] A: That makes sense. Now, could you recommend some specific products that contain salicylic acid but aren't too strong? I'd prefer something I can use a few times a week.\n[[00:48],[00:59]] B: For sensitive skin, I'd suggest Paula's Choice 2% BHA liquid exfoliant. It's very gentle but still effective. The Ordinary also has a good\n[[00:53],[00:55]] B: Mm.\n[[00:58],[01:06]] A: How long should I wait before increasing how often I use these products? And should I apply them before or after moisturizer?\n[[01:07],[01:22]] B: Wait at least two weeks before increasing frequency, and always listen to your skin. Apply chemical exfoliants before moisturizer on clean, dry skin. The moisturizer will help lock in hydration and prevent irritation.\n[[01:11],[01:12]] B: Right.\n[[01:13],[01:14]] B: Cool.\n[[01:15],[01:16]] B: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the provided dialogue transcript.\n\n**Analysis of Response Relevance:**\n1. **A's Initial Question ([[00:00],[00:10]]):** A clearly asks for advice on exfoliating arms to reduce dark spots, specifically for sensitive skin. The request is specific and easy to understand.\n2. **B's First Response ([[00:10],[00:20]]):** B directly addresses the question by suggesting chemical exfoliants and mentioning two relevant types (glycolic and salicylic acid), noting which might be better for sensitivity. The response is perfectly relevant.\n3. **A's Follow-up ([[00:19],[00:28]]):** A asks for a clarification on the difference between the two acids mentioned by B. This is a logical and coherent follow-up question, staying directly on topic.\n4. **B's Explanation ([[00:28],[00:39]]):** B provides a clear and concise explanation, directly answering A's question. The information is relevant and helps A make a decision.\n5. **A's Request for Products ([[00:37],[00:47]]):** Based on the information received, A makes a decision (salicylic acid) and asks for specific product recommendations. This is a natural progression of the conversation.\n6. **B's Recommendations ([[00:48],[00:59]]):** B gives specific, relevant product examples that fit A's criteria.\n7. **A's Final Questions ([[00:58],[01:06]]):** A asks about application frequency and method, which are practical and relevant questions following product recommendations.\n8. **B's Final Advice ([[01:07],[01:22]]):** B provides clear, actionable instructions that directly answer A's questions.\n\n**Conclusion:** The entire dialogue is highly relevant and logically coherent. Each turn directly addresses or logically follows from the previous one. The conversation progresses naturally from a general problem to specific solutions and usage instructions.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to analyze the interactional fluency of the dialogue, looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:**\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's turn ending at [00:47] and B's turn starting at [00:48].\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's turn ending at [01:06] and B's turn starting at [01:07].\n * All other turn transitions are immediate or have a slight overlap. The pauses present are brief and serve as natural conversational beats. There are no long, awkward silences that would harm fluency.\n\n2. **Overlaps:**\n * There are numerous short, one- or two-word overlaps from speaker B (\"Mm hmm\", \"Uh huh\", \"Right\", \"Mm\", \"Cool\", \"Really\"). These are not disruptive; they function as backchannels, indicating that B is actively listening and engaged. This is a hallmark of good conversational fluency.\n * At [[00:19],[00:20]], A interrupts B to ask a clarifying question. This is a functional overlap, not a disruptive one, as it helps steer the conversation toward the information A needs most.\n * At [[00:37],[00:39]] and [[00:58],[00:59]], A begins speaking just as B is finishing. These are minor turn-taking overlaps that are very common in natural speech and contribute to a smooth, fast-paced flow rather than hindering it.\n\n**Conclusion:** The interactional fluency is excellent. Pauses are minimal and natural. The overlaps are either supportive backchannels or brief, functional interjections that keep the conversation flowing smoothly. There are no extended or disruptive overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/169",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: I love being close to you. It feels so safe and loved.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:03],[00:09]] B: I know, me too. I feel like I can protect you and keep you safe when we're close like\n[[00:06],[00:07]] B: Right.\n[[00:08],[00:11]] A: I don't need protecting, but it's nice to know you're there for me.\n[[00:09],[00:10]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: Always, my love.\n[[00:13],[00:17]] A: Being close to you is my favorite thing in the world.\n[[00:15],[00:15]] A: Really.\n[[00:17],[00:27]] B: I feel the same way, my love. But earlier, you mentioned feeling safe and loved. Do you think there's anything else we can do to make our time together even more special?\n[[00:20],[00:21]] B: Really.\n[[00:22],[00:24]] B: I see.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in this dialogue are highly relevant and coherent. Speaker A starts by expressing a feeling of love and safety. Speaker B reciprocates this feeling and elaborates on the \"safety\" aspect, which is a direct and logical continuation. Speaker A then clarifies their point (\"I don't need protecting...\"), which is a relevant and natural turn in the conversation. The dialogue continues with both speakers affirming their feelings for each other. Speaker B does an excellent job of maintaining topic coherence by referring back to A's initial statement (\"you mentioned feeling safe and loved\") and using it to ask a follow-up question to deepen the conversation. All turns are logically connected and stay on the central theme.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, awkward pauses between speaker turns; the transition from one speaker to the next is smooth. For example, there is only a one-second pause between B's turn ending at [00:12] and A's turn beginning at [00:13], which is natural. There is a brief, one-second overlap where A begins speaking at [00:08] just before B finishes their sentence at [00:09]. This type of short overlap is common in natural, engaged conversation and is not disruptive. The other overlaps noted in the transcript are intra-speaker (e.g., a speaker saying \"Ummm\" or \"Really\" during their own turn), which are filler words or self-interjections and do not negatively impact the flow between the two participants.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/169",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: Hi! I was just in the neighborhood and thought I'd stop by to say hello.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Uh.\n[[00:05],[00:08]] B: Hi, Kallan! It's great to see you. Come on in.\n[[00:06],[00:07]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:09],[00:10]] A: Thanks.\n[[00:11],[00:13]] B: So what's new with you?\n[[00:14],[00:18]] A: Not much. Just been busy with work and\n[[00:16],[00:16]] A: Mm.\n[[00:16],[00:18]] B: Work? How's that going?\n[[00:18],[00:22]] A: It's going well. I just got a promotion, so that's been keeping me busy.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] A: Um.\n[[00:23],[00:26]] B: That's great! Congratulations!\n[[00:26],[00:28]] A: Thanks. I'm really excited about it.\n[[00:30],[00:32]] B: What about school? How's that going?\n[[00:34],[00:41]] A: It's good. I'm taking some interesting classes this semester and learning a lot, though it's definitely a challenge to keep up with everything.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:42],[00:46]] B: Oh, what classes are you taking? Anything particularly challenging?\n[[00:44],[00:44]] B: Um.\n[[00:47],[00:52]] A: Yeah, there's one on advanced data analysis that's really pushing me, but I'm enjoying it.\n[[00:50],[00:51]] A: Mm hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation flows logically and coherently from one turn to the next. It begins with a standard greeting and explanation for the visit ([[00:00],[00:04]]), followed by a welcoming response ([[00:05],[00:08]]). The conversation naturally progresses from general catch-up questions (\"What's new with you?\" at [[00:11],[00:13]]) to more specific topics like work and school. Each speaker's turn is a direct and appropriate reaction to the previous one. For example, when speaker A mentions being busy with work ([[00:14],[00:18]]), speaker B immediately follows up with a relevant question about it ([[00:16],[00:18]]). Similarly, when A discusses school ([[00:34],[00:41]]), B asks for more specific details about the classes ([[00:42],[00:46]]). This creates a natural and engaging conversational exchange.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. The pauses between turns are consistently short and natural, typically lasting one to two seconds (e.g., [[00:28],[00:30]], [[00:32],[00:34]]), which is appropriate for a relaxed conversation. There is one instance of a slightly extended overlap from [[00:16],[00:18]], where speaker B begins asking about work while speaker A is still finishing their sentence. However, this type of overlap, where a speaker eagerly latches onto a keyword, is common in natural conversation and shows engagement rather than being a disruptive interruption. All other overlaps are brief, single-word \"backchannels\" or self-corrections (e.g., \"uh,\" \"um\"), which are characteristic of natural speech and do not detract from the fluency of the interaction. There are no prolonged, awkward pauses or disruptive, extended overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/169",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:14]] A: Could you explain what the phrase \"a legend of no one\" might mean in simpler terms, and could you tell me a short story that shows this idea in action? I'm trying to understand how someone can be important without being famous.\n[[00:15],[00:30]] B: It means someone who isn't famous but still matters in their own way. Imagine a quiet gardener who tends flowers every day. No one knows their name, but the flowers bloom because of them. They don't need fame to make the world\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] B: Really.\n[[00:23],[00:24]] B: Uh.\n[[00:29],[00:41]] A: What does \"holler a lung full of hurt\" express, and can you describe a real-life moment where someone might feel this way? I want to understand how people release deep emotional pain.\n[[00:42],[01:03]] B: It means screaming out your pain when it feels unbearable. Picture a parent who just lost their child—they might collapse to their knees and wail until their voice breaks. That raw, unfiltered cry is \"hollering a lung full of hurt.\" It’s not pretty, but sometimes pain needs to escape that way. Even crying loudly can start the healing.\n[[00:48],[00:49]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:50],[00:51]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:52],[00:53]] B: Uh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. In the first exchange, speaker B directly answers speaker A's question about the phrase \"a legend of no one\" by providing a clear definition and a simple, effective analogy of a gardener. This response perfectly addresses A's goal of understanding importance without fame. In the second exchange, B again provides a direct and powerful explanation for \"holler a lung full of hurt,\" complemented by a vivid real-life example of a grieving parent. This response effectively clarifies the concept of releasing deep emotional pain. The topics are coherent, and the responses are logical and consistently on-point.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The pauses between turns are natural and brief, typically lasting only one second (e.g., between [00:14] and [00:15], and between [00:41] and [00:42]). There is one minor, one-second overlap between speaker B's turn ending at [00:30] and speaker A's turn beginning at [00:29], which is common in natural conversation and not disruptive. The brief interjections from speaker B within their own turns (e.g., \"Okay, okay,\" \"Ummm\") are typical filler words and do not disrupt the flow of the conversation. There are no extended, harmful overlaps or long, awkward pauses.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/170",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: Hey Mrs. Kluever, can I ask you a question about the test?\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:04],[00:06]] B: Of course Nadya, what would you like to\n[[00:06],[00:09]] A: I was wondering if there was anything in particular that I could have done better on.\n[[00:07],[00:08]] A: Really.\n[[00:10],[00:26]] B: Let me take a look at your test and I'll tell you what I think. (She looks through Nadya's test.) On question four, you could have given a more detailed answer and on question sev- I wanted to mention that your explanation was good, but it lacked depth in certain areas.\n[[00:15],[00:15]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Cool.\n[[00:27],[00:33]] A: Oh, about question four, do you mean I should have explained the concept more thoroughly or added more examples?\n[[00:29],[00:30]] A: I see.\n[[00:34],[00:46]] B: More examples would have definitely helped. And as I was saying, on question seven, you could have cited specific examples from the text to support your answer. Other than that, I think you did a great job!\n[[00:39],[00:40]] B: Right.\n[[00:46],[00:48]] A: Alright, thanks Mrs. Kluever!",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and logical consistency of the dialogue.\n\n1. **A's opening:** \"Hey Mrs. Kluever, can I ask you a question about the test?\" This is a clear and direct opening, establishing the topic.\n2. **B's response:** \"Of course Nadya, what would you like to\" B's response is a direct and positive reply, inviting A to ask their question. It is perfectly relevant.\n3. **A's question:** \"I was wondering if there was anything in particular that I could have done better on.\" This is a logical follow-up, asking for specific feedback on the test, which was the stated topic.\n4. **B's feedback:** B looks at the test and provides specific, actionable feedback on two different questions (\"On question four, you could have given a more detailed answer\" and \"on question sev-... your explanation was good, but it lacked depth\"). This directly answers A's request for feedback.\n5. **A's clarification:** \"Oh, about question four, do you mean I should have explained the concept more thoroughly or added more examples?\" A seeks to clarify the feedback given for question four, which shows active listening and keeps the conversation focused and coherent.\n6. **B's clarification and summary:** B answers A's question (\"More examples would have definitely helped\") and then finishes their point about question seven (\"you could have cited specific examples\"). B then provides a positive summary (\"Other than that, I think you did a great job!\"). This is all highly relevant and helpful.\n7. **A's closing:** \"Alright, thanks Mrs. Kluever!\" This is a polite and logical way to conclude the interaction after receiving the requested help.\n\nThe dialogue is consistently on-topic, and each turn is a logical and relevant response to the previous one. The conversation flows logically from a general request to specific feedback and clarification.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n* **Pauses:** I will check the timestamps for any long gaps between turns.\n * `[00:03]` (A ends) to `[00:04]` (B starts): 1-second pause. This is a normal turn-taking gap.\n * `[00:09]` (A ends) to `[00:10]` (B starts): 1-second pause. This is also a normal gap, perfectly natural as B prepares to look at the test.\n * `[00:26]` (B ends) to `[00:27]` (A starts): 1-second pause. Normal turn-taking.\n * `[00:33]` (A ends) to `[00:34]` (B starts): 1-second pause. Normal turn-taking.\n * There are no prolonged pauses that disrupt the flow of the conversation.\n\n* **Overlaps:** I will check the timestamps for overlapping speech.\n * `[00:04]-[00:06]` B: \"...what would you like to\"\n * `[00:06]-[00:09]` A: \"I was wondering...\"\n * There is a very brief overlap as A begins to speak right as B is finishing her sentence. This kind of slight overlap is very common in natural conversation and indicates engagement rather than a problem. It is not an extended or disruptive overlap.\n * The other utterances during main turns (e.g., A's \"Really\", B's \"Mhm\", A's \"I see\") are short backchannels or thinking-aloud moments that do not disrupt the primary speaker and contribute to a natural-sounding interaction.\n\n* **Conclusion:** The interaction is very fluent. The turn-taking is smooth with no awkward silences. The one minor overlap is brief and typical of natural, engaged dialogue.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/170",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:12]] A: Could you explain more about the Russian Orthodox Church's liturgical traditions? What sets them apart from other Christian worship services? I'm particularly interested in understanding their unique elements.\n[[00:12],[00:26]] B: The Russian Orthodox liturgy is quite distinct. Services are long, often lasting hours, with beautiful chanting instead of spoken prayers. The church uses incense and icons extensively\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Mm.\n[[00:19],[00:19]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:21],[00:21]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:26],[00:37]] A: Can you describe what a typical Russian Orthodox service looks like? I'd like to know the main parts and how they differ from Western Christian services I might be familiar with.\n[[00:38],[00:59]] B: A typical Divine Liturgy starts with preparation prayers, then the Liturgy of the Word with scripture readings. The central part is the Eucharist, where bread and wine become Christ's body and blood. Unlike Western services, the congregation stands throughout, and the priest faces the altar, not the people.\n[[00:44],[00:46]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:47],[00:48]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:49],[00:50]] B: Right.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A initiates the conversation by asking for a general explanation of Russian Orthodox liturgical traditions. Speaker B provides a direct and informative answer, highlighting key unique elements like the service length, chanting, and use of incense and icons. Speaker A then logically follows up with a more specific question about the structure of a typical service and its differences from Western traditions. Speaker B's second response is also highly relevant, breaking down the Divine Liturgy into its main parts and pointing out specific contrasts, such as the congregation standing and the priest's orientation. The conversation is coherent and stays focused on the initial topic, with each turn building logically upon the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking between the speakers is smooth and natural. There are no extended or disruptive overlaps between Speaker A and Speaker B. The pauses between turns are brief and appropriate for a natural conversation (e.g., a one-second pause between [00:37] and [00:38]). The backchanneling utterances listed for speaker B ([[00:17],[00:21]] and [[00:44],[00:50]]) appear to be transcription errors, as they overlap with B's own speech rather than A's. Ignoring these transcription anomalies, the core interaction between the two speakers is fluid and seamless, without any harmful interruptions or long silences.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/171",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Hey, Dad. Do you have a minute?\n[[00:02],[00:04]] B: Of course, what's up?\n[[00:04],[00:10]] A: I wanted to talk to you about the wedding ceremony. I was thinking that we could have it on September 12th.\n[[00:07],[00:07]] A: Uh.\n[[00:10],[00:16]] B: That sounds like a great date! Why did you choose that\n[[00:12],[00:14]] B: Uh.\n[[00:15],[00:24]] A: Sorry, I just thought it would give us enough time to get everything ready and also, everyone can come on that day. So, what do you think?\n[[00:18],[00:18]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] A: I see.\n[[00:24],[00:29]] B: I think it's a wonderful idea! Let's start making the preparations right away!\n[[00:25],[00:27]] B: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and coherence of the dialogue.\n\n1. **A's opening:** \"Hey, Dad. Do you have a minute?\" - A standard and relevant way to start a conversation.\n2. **B's response:** \"Of course, what's up?\" - A direct and appropriate reply, acknowledging A and asking for the topic.\n3. **A's topic introduction:** \"I wanted to talk to you about the wedding ceremony. I was thinking that we could have it on September 12th.\" - A clear and coherent statement of the topic and a specific proposal.\n4. **B's reaction and question:** \"That sounds like a great date! Why did you choose that\" - B responds positively to the proposal and asks a relevant follow-up question to understand the reasoning.\n5. **A's explanation:** \"Sorry, I just thought it would give us enough time to get everything ready and also, everyone can come on that day. So, what do you think?\" - A directly answers B's question and then seeks B's final opinion, keeping the conversation focused.\n6. **B's conclusion:** \"I think it's a wonderful idea! Let's start making the preparations right away!\" - B gives a clear, positive answer and moves the conversation toward the next logical step.\n\nThe entire dialogue is logically consistent and maintains topic coherence. Each turn is a relevant and direct response to the preceding one.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between turns. The longest pause is one second between the first and second turns ([00:01] to [00:02]), which is a natural conversational gap. All other turns follow each other immediately.\n2. **Overlaps:**\n * There is a one-second overlap between speaker B and speaker A from [00:15] to [00:16]. Speaker B is finishing their question (\"...that\") just as speaker A begins their answer (\"Sorry...\"). This is a very brief and common type of overlap in natural, enthusiastic conversation and is not disruptive.\n * The other transcribed \"overlaps\" (e.g., A's \"Uh.\" at [00:07], B's \"Uh.\" at [00:12], B's \"Really.\" at [00:25]) are actually self-interruptions or fillers spoken by the current speaker during their own turn, not overlaps between different speakers.\n\nThe interactional flow is smooth and natural. There are no harmful pauses or extended overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/172",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:18]] A: I'm really interested in learning how calf exercises can improve overall leg strength. Could you explain how the calves connect to other leg muscles and why strengthening them helps? I'd also love to know some specific exercises that target multiple leg muscles at once.\n[[00:19],[00:33]] B: Your calves connect to your hamstrings and glutes through a chain of muscles called the posterior chain. When you strengthen your calves, you improve power transfer through your whole leg. Exercises like calf raises on stairs\n[[00:23],[00:24]] B: Uh.\n[[00:25],[00:27]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:28],[00:29]] B: I see.\n[[00:32],[00:45]] A: My friend is a nurse who stands all day and gets leg pain. How exactly can calf exercises help people who stand for long hours at work? I want to understand the science behind it and how it reduces fatigue.\n[[00:47],[01:05]] B: Standing all day makes your calves work constantly to keep you upright. Stronger calves mean better blood flow and less swelling in your legs. They also help absorb shock better, reducing joint strain. This means less pain and more endurance during long shifts.\n[[00:52],[00:53]] B: Mm.\n[[00:54],[00:55]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:56],[00:57]] B: Ummm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance.\n\n1. **A's first turn to B's first turn:** A asks for a detailed explanation of how calf exercises improve leg strength, the connection to other muscles, and specific exercises. B responds by explaining the \"posterior chain\" (calves, hamstrings, glutes), how strengthening calves improves power transfer, and begins to give a relevant exercise example (\"calf raises on stairs\"). This response is directly relevant and addresses the core of A's question.\n\n2. **A's second turn to B's second turn:** A presents a specific scenario (a nurse who stands all day) and asks for the \"science\" behind how calf exercises can help reduce pain and fatigue in this context. B provides a clear, scientific explanation, mentioning improved blood flow, reduced swelling, and better shock absorption, which directly answers how calf exercises alleviate the specific problems A described.\n\n3. **Overall Coherence:** The conversation progresses logically from a general inquiry about calf strength to a specific, practical application. Each speaker's turn is a coherent and relevant continuation of the previous one. The dialogue maintains a clear and consistent topic.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, focusing on pauses and overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:**\n * There is a one-second pause between A's first turn ending at [00:18] and B's turn starting at [00:19]. This is a completely normal and natural gap in conversation.\n * There is a two-second pause between A's second turn ending at [00:45] and B's starting at [00:47]. This is also a natural pause, allowing the speaker a moment to formulate a thoughtful response. It is not awkwardly long.\n\n2. **Overlaps:**\n * There is a one-second overlap where A's turn ([00:32]-[00:45]) begins just before B's turn ([00:19]-[00:33]) finishes. This is a very brief and common type of overlap in natural conversation and does not disrupt the flow.\n * The other utterances attributed to B (e.g., \"Uh\", \"Mhm\", \"I see\") occur within B's main speaking turns. This is likely a transcription error, and these are almost certainly backchanneling cues from speaker A, indicating active listening. As backchannels, they contribute positively to the interactional fluency. Even if they were self-interruptions from B, they are too brief to be considered a significant fluency issue.\n\n3. **Overall Fluency:** The turn-taking is smooth, pauses are natural, and the only overlap is minor and not disruptive. The interaction flows well.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/172",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:09]] A: I'm really worried about Wendy's health situation, could you tell me more about how Graves' disease might be affecting her and what treatments she might be undergoing right now?\n[[00:10],[00:17]] B: Graves' disease is an autoimmune condition that affects the thyroid. It can cause fatigue, weight loss,\n[[00:12],[00:12]] B: Really.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Really.\n[[00:16],[00:27]] A: That sounds really tough to deal with, especially combined with a shoulder injury. Do we know if she's recovering at home or if she's staying at a medical facility for treatment?\n[[00:27],[00:34]] B: From what her team has shared, Wendy's recovering at home with proper medical support. They want her\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: Right.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Really.\n[[00:33],[00:43]] A: I hope she takes all the time she needs. Speaking of her show, are there any plans to change the format or content while these guest hosts are filling in for Wendy?\n[[00:43],[00:51]] B: The producers say they'll keep the show's core format familiar to viewers. But guest hosts like Nick\n[[00:46],[00:47]] B: Sure.\n[[00:50],[01:00]] A: That makes sense. Before we wrap up, could you remind me how long Wendy has been hosting her talk show and what makes her style so unique compared to others?\n[[01:00],[01:13]] B: Wendy's hosted her show for over ten years now. What sets her apart is her unfiltered opinions and the way she connects with guests and audiences - she's got that special mix of honesty and humor.\n[[01:04],[01:05]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[01:06],[01:07]] B: Hmm.\n[[01:08],[01:09]] B: Hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue based on Response Relevance.\n\n1. **A's first question:** Asks about Wendy's Graves' disease, its effects, and treatment.\n2. **B's first response:** Directly answers by defining Graves' disease and listing symptoms. This is a relevant and coherent response.\n3. **A's second question:** Acknowledges the information and asks a follow-up about her recovery location. This is a logical continuation of the topic.\n4. **B's second response:** Directly answers that she is recovering at home. This is relevant.\n5. **A's third question:** Shifts the topic logically from her health to her show, asking about format changes.\n6. **B's third response:** Answers the question directly, stating the format will remain the same. This is relevant.\n7. **A's fourth question:** Asks for details about the show's history and Wendy's unique style. This is a relevant concluding question.\n8. **B's fourth response:** Answers both parts of the question, providing the show's duration and a description of her style. This is a relevant and complete answer.\n\nOverall, the conversation is highly coherent. Each response is directly relevant to the preceding question, and the topic progression is logical.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for Interactional Fluency, focusing on extended overlaps and long pauses.\n\n1. **Pauses:**\n * [00:09] -> [00:10]: 1-second pause. This is a normal and acceptable gap between turns.\n * [00:27] -> [00:27]: No pause. The transition is immediate.\n * [00:43] -> [00:43]: No pause. The transition is immediate.\n * [01:00] -> [01:00]: No pause. The transition is immediate.\n There are no prolonged or awkward pauses in the dialogue.\n\n2. **Overlaps:**\n * [00:16] - [00:17]: Speaker A begins speaking one second before Speaker B finishes. This is a very minor and natural overlap, typical of smooth conversation.\n * [00:33] - [00:34]: Speaker A begins speaking one second before Speaker B finishes. This is also a minor, natural overlap.\n * [00:50] - [00:51]: Speaker A begins one second before Speaker B finishes. Again, a minor and natural overlap.\n * The single-word utterances within B's turns (e.g., \"Really.\", \"Right.\") are backchannels or fillers from the same speaker and do not constitute disruptive overlaps between the two participants.\n\nThe turn-taking is smooth and natural. There are no extended, harmful overlaps or long pauses. The interactional fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/173",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: I don't want things to change. I like our life the way it is.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: I see.\n[[00:04],[00:08]] B: But things always change, whether we want them to or\n[[00:05],[00:06]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:08],[00:13]] A: I know, but I don't have to like it. Why does everything have to keep changing?\n[[00:10],[00:11]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:13],[00:23]] B: Because that's just the way life is. Things are constantly moving and evolving, and if we don't change with them, we'll end up feeling stuck, like we're being left behind.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Uh.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:23],[00:28]] A: That's not fair! I don't want to change. I'm happy with the way things are now.\n[[00:26],[00:27]] A: I see.\n[[00:29],[00:35]] B: You might be happy now, but eventually you're going to get bored with this routine and you'll start wanting something more.\n[[00:32],[00:33]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:36],[00:40]] A: That's not true! I'm perfectly content with our current situation.\n[[00:38],[00:38]] A: Uh.\n[[00:40],[00:48]] B: Maybe you are right now, but what about five years from now? Ten years from now? Are you going to feel the same way then?\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:44],[00:45]] B: Sure.\n[[00:49],[00:52]] A: Of course I will! Why would anything change?\n[[00:52],[01:05]] B: Well, it might not change on its own, but people do tend to change as they get older. You might meet someone new or have a different career goal in mind and suddenly our current lifestyle won't seem so appealing anymore.\n[[01:05],[01:12]] A: That's not going to happen! I'm never going to meet anyone new and my career goals haven't changed in years!\n[[01:13],[01:19]] B: You say that now, but you can never predict the future. Things have a way of changing when you least expect it.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains a high level of response relevance and topic coherence throughout the interaction. The conversation revolves around a clear, central theme: one speaker's resistance to change versus the other's perspective on its inevitability. Each turn directly addresses the previous statement, creating a logical and easy-to-follow argument. For example, when speaker A says, \"I don't want things to change,\" speaker B immediately counters with, \"But things always change.\" This pattern of direct response and counter-response continues, ensuring the conversation remains focused and coherent. While there are some minor, brief interjections that seem to be transcription artifacts, they do not detract from the strong logical consistency of the main conversational thread.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking between speakers is smooth and natural, with no long, awkward pauses that would disrupt the conversational flow. The pauses between turns are all one second or less, which is typical for a natural conversation. Furthermore, there are no extended overlaps where the speakers talk over each other. The few overlaps present in the transcript are instances of a speaker uttering short backchannels during their own main turn, which doesn't harm the interactional dynamic between the two participants. The overall pace and rhythm of the conversation are fluid and appropriate.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/173",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:05]] A: Hey, I just bought this amazing book! It's called *Ready Player One*. You should check it out.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:05],[00:10]] B: Hmm, I guess I'll check it out if you think it's great. What's the story\n[[00:07],[00:08]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:09],[00:19]] A: Sorry to jump in, but it's about this guy named Wade who builds a digital world. The book is so immersive, you should really dive into it when you have the time.\n[[00:12],[00:13]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:13],[00:15]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:19],[00:24]] B: Wait, Wade builds a digital world? That sounds fascinating. Is it like a game or something?\n[[00:22],[00:23]] B: Mm.\n[[00:25],[00:33]] A: Exactly! It's a virtual reality game where players can live out their wildest fantasies. You should definitely give it a read.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] A: Cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue based on response relevance and interactional fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n- Speaker A starts by recommending a book, *Ready Player One*.\n- Speaker B responds by showing interest and asking a relevant question about the plot (\"What's the story\").\n- Speaker A answers B's question directly by giving a brief summary of the book.\n- Speaker B follows up with a clarifying question based on A's summary (\"Is it like a game or something?\").\n- Speaker A confirms B's assumption and elaborates further.\nThe conversation is logically consistent and stays on topic. Each speaker's turn is a direct and relevant response to the previous one. The topic coherence is excellent.\n\n**Conclusion for Response Relevance:** The dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency of the dialogue, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pause Analysis:**\n- [[00:05]] A ends, [[00:05]] B starts. No pause.\n- [[00:10]] B ends, [[00:09]] A has already started. This is an overlap, not a pause.\n- [[00:19]] A ends, [[00:19]] B starts. No pause.\n- [[00:24]] B ends, [[00:25]] A starts. A 1-second pause, which is very natural in conversation.\nThere are no prolonged or awkward pauses between turns.\n\n**Overlap Analysis:**\n- There is a 1-second overlap between speaker B's turn [[00:05],[00:10]] and speaker A's turn [[00:09],[00:19]]. Speaker A starts speaking before B has finished. However, this overlap is very brief (1 second) and speaker A even acknowledges it (\"Sorry to jump in\"), which can be a natural feature of an enthusiastic conversation.\n- The other annotations like \"Ummm\", \"Mm hmm\", \"Mm\", and \"Cool\" are self-overlaps or backchannels within a speaker's own turn. These are typical filler words and do not disrupt the flow of the conversation between the two speakers.\n- Since the only inter-speaker overlap is very short and is handled naturally, it does not significantly harm the interactional fluency.\n\n**Conclusion for Interactional Fluency:** The dialogue flows smoothly with no harmful pauses or extended overlaps. The fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/174",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hi, Imani. How are you doing?\n[[00:03],[00:06]] B: Not too bad. Just worried about the future, I guess.\n[[00:04],[00:05]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:08],[00:09]] A: What do you mean?\n[[00:09],[00:16]] B: Well, I don't know if I'll be able to find a good job, make friends, or be happy. It's just all so uncertain.\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: Sure.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:17],[00:23]] A: Imani, it's normal to feel this way. Everyone feels like this at some point in their\n[[00:19],[00:20]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:22],[00:26]] B: Really? Even you?\n[[00:23],[00:24]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:27],[00:35]] A: Yes, even me. But you know what? We all have to face our fears and take risks if we want to achieve our dreams and find true happiness.\n[[00:30],[00:31]] A: Cool.\n[[00:36],[00:39]] B: I guess you're right. It's just so scary though.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:40],[00:48]] A: I know it is. But remember that you're not alone in this. I'm here for you and I'll help you through it every step of the way.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] A: Really.\n[[00:45],[00:46]] A: Right.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance. Speaker A starts with a standard greeting, and Speaker B responds appropriately by sharing their current emotional state, which is a worry about the future. Speaker A follows up with a relevant question (\"What do you mean?\") to understand B's concerns better. B's explanation is detailed and on-topic. The subsequent turns from A are supportive and directly address B's fears, while B's responses show they are listening and processing A's advice. The conversation flows logically from a problem statement to reassurance and support, with no deviations from the topic or logical inconsistencies.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. The pauses between turns are all brief and natural, typically lasting only one or two seconds (e.g., the 2-second pause between 00:06 and 00:08). This indicates a comfortable and smooth conversational rhythm. There is one minor overlap where B begins speaking at [00:22] while A is finishing their sentence at [00:23]. This one-second overlap is a natural interjection (\"Really? Even you?\") and does not disrupt the flow; in fact, it shows B's active engagement. The other listed overlaps are instances of a speaker providing their own backchannel (e.g., \"Mhm,\" \"Uh huh\"), which doesn't negatively impact the interaction between the two speakers. Overall, the turn-taking is smooth and free of harmful interruptions or long delays.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/174",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: I guess I just feel really alone sometimes. I know that sounds pathetic, but it's true. I feel like I'm always the one on the outside looking in, and I just wish I could\n[[00:03],[00:04]] A: Right.\n[[00:05],[00:05]] A: Um.\n[[00:06],[00:07]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:10],[00:28]] B: It doesn't sound pathetic at all, Harriet. In fact, it sounds quite normal. A lot of people feel like they're on the outside looking in at some point in their lives. It can be hard to open up and share your feelings, but it's worth it if it means you'll be able to connect with others more deeply. Have you been trying to reach out to people more?\n[[00:16],[00:16]] B: Cool.\n[[00:17],[00:19]] B: Uh.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] B: Right.\n[[00:29],[00:45]] A: Yeah, I've been trying. But it's just not as easy as it sounds. I don't know how to start a conversation without feeling awkward, and even when I do manage to talk to someone, I don't feel like I'm really being understood or that the conversation is going anywhere meaningful.\n[[00:34],[00:34]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] A: Sure.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] A: I see.\n[[00:45],[01:00]] B: Heard? I totally get that. Sometimes it feels like you're talking, but no one's actually listening. Have you tried finding someone who really gets you? Someone who won't just listen but will actually engage with what you're saying?\n[[00:50],[00:51]] B: Ummm.\n[[01:01],[01:04]] A: Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks for listening, Dad.\n[[01:04],[01:06]] B: Of course, sweetie. Any time.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B's initial response directly addresses Speaker A's feelings of loneliness, offering validation (\"It doesn't sound pathetic at all\") and normalization (\"A lot of people feel like...\"). This is a highly empathetic and relevant reply. The conversation continues logically, with each speaker's turn building directly on the previous one. For example, B asks a relevant follow-up question about A's efforts to connect, and A's response elaborates on the specific challenges they face. B then refines their advice based on A's new information. The topic remains coherent throughout, focusing on social connection and understanding. The dialogue flows logically from a general expression of feeling to a more specific discussion of solutions.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very high. There are no long or awkward pauses between turns. For instance, the transition from B's turn ending at [00:28] to A's turn beginning at [00:29] is only one second, which is a natural conversational gap. Similarly, other transitions are either immediate or have a brief, one-second pause, indicating smooth turn-taking. While there are some minor overlaps, such as B starting to speak at [00:10] while A is finishing at [00:11], this one-second overlap is very brief and typical of natural conversation. Other listed utterances like \"Uh huh\" and \"Right\" are short backchannels that signify active listening and do not disrupt the flow of the primary speaker. There are no extended, disruptive overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/175",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: Hey, thanks for coming to help me out. I really appreciate it.\n[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Cool.\n[[00:04],[00:08]] B: No problem, happens to everyone at some point. Don't worry about it too much.\n[[00:05],[00:06]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:09],[00:17]] A: I know, but I still feel terrible about it. I promised my boss I would be more careful in the future and now I'm already\n[[00:13],[00:14]] A: Uh.\n[[00:16],[00:22]] B: Sorry to jump in, but have you called your boss to let them know about the delay? It might help ease the situation.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:23],[00:34]] A: I haven't yet, I was just about to. Well, you can't change what happened so just focus on what you can do in the future. That's all you can control and it will show that you're taking responsibility.\n[[00:26],[00:27]] A: Sure.\n[[00:28],[00:29]] A: Really.\n[[00:35],[00:42]] B: Absolutely, and maybe next time you could plan for some extra time in the morning just in case something unexpected happens.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] B: Really.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:44],[00:47]] A: Yeah, you're right. Thanks for the advice.\n[[00:47],[00:51]] B: No problem. Now let's get your car towed so you can get to work.\n[[00:49],[00:50]] B: That's cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains strong response relevance and topic coherence throughout. Speaker A starts by thanking B, and B responds appropriately by being reassuring. When A expresses guilt, B offers a practical, relevant suggestion to call their boss. Speaker A's response at [00:23] is a bit unusual, as it combines a direct answer (\"I haven't yet...\") with what sounds like self-talk or self-reassurance (\"...you can't change what happened...\"). However, this is still coherent within the context of someone processing a stressful situation. Speaker B's next turn builds directly on this self-talk, showing that the conversational thread was not lost. The conversation concludes with relevant advice and a plan of action. All turns are logically connected and contribute to the topic at hand.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are no long, disruptive pauses between speaker turns; the gaps are brief and natural. There is one minor overlap between speaker A and B from [00:16] to [00:17], but it is very short (1 second) and speaker B even prefaces their interruption with \"Sorry to jump in,\" making it a natural and polite conversational maneuver rather than a fluency error. The other overlaps listed in the transcript are a speaker's own brief hesitations or interjections overlapping with their main utterance (e.g., \"Uh\", \"Ummm\"). These are features of natural speech and are not the kind of extended, disruptive overlaps that harm interactional fluency. The turn-taking is smooth and follows a natural rhythm.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/176",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: I can't believe it, mom! I won first place in the competition!\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:05],[00:09]] B: That's amazing, Tirzah! Congratulations!\n[[00:06],[00:08]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:09],[00:16]] A: And now they're asking me to perform in a professional ballet production. It's all happening just like I always dreamed it\n[[00:12],[00:13]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:16],[00:24]] B: Wait, a professional ballet production? That's a huge opportunity! But are you sure you can manage that along with your schoolwork?\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Cool.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] B: Cool.\n[[00:25],[00:33]] A: I know it's a big commitment, but it would be a dream come true if I could do it! I've been working so hard for this moment.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:33],[00:40]] B: You've worked so hard for this, Tirzah. You deserve every success you're having. I'm so proud of you.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:41],[00:44]] A: Thank you, mom. I couldn't have done it without your support.\n[[00:42],[00:43]] A: Cool.\n[[00:46],[00:49]] B: I only want what's best for you, Tirzah. You know that.\n[[00:47],[00:47]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:50],[00:53]] A: I know. And I appreciate everything you've done for me.\n[[00:51],[00:52]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:55],[01:03]] B: We'll just have to see how things go with the ballet production. It's a big commitment and we'll need to make sure it doesn't interfere with school too much.\n[[01:04],[01:11]] A: Yeah, I know. But I'm willing to work hard to balance both. If it ever becomes too much, I'll let you know.\n[[01:12],[01:18]] B: Let's take things one step at a time and see how it goes, okay? No need to get ahead of ourselves here.\n[[01:19],[01:21]] A: Okay, mom. Thanks for understanding.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue presents a coherent and logical conversation between a daughter (A) and her mother (B). Speaker A shares exciting news about winning a competition and receiving a professional opportunity. Speaker B's responses are consistently relevant, transitioning from congratulatory and excited to expressing a parent's practical concern about balancing the new commitment with schoolwork. The conversation progresses naturally as they discuss this concern, with the mother offering support and the daughter showing understanding. Each turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining a consistent topic and emotional arc. The conversation concludes with a mutual agreement, demonstrating strong topic coherence throughout.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency of this dialogue is excellent.\n- **Pauses:** There are several short pauses (1-2 seconds) between speaker turns (e.g., [[00:03],[00:05]], [[00:44],[00:46]]). These pauses are brief and serve as natural transitions, allowing the speakers to process information before responding. There are no prolonged or awkward silences that would indicate a breakdown in the conversational flow.\n- **Overlaps:** The transcript indicates several instances of self-overlap, where a speaker uses fillers like \"Ummm\" or \"Cool\" within their own turn (e.g., A's \"Ummm\" at [[00:12],[00:13]] occurs during their own speech from [[00:09],[00:16]]). These are not harmful interactional overlaps where speakers talk over each other. There are no instances of one speaker interrupting the other. Turn-taking is clean and smooth, contributing to a natural-sounding interaction.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/177",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: Could you explain in simpler terms how genetic engineering helps fight cancer? I'm really curious about how scientists use this technology to target cancer cells specifically.\n[[00:12],[00:24]] B: Sure! Genetic engineering helps by letting scientists change cells to fight cancer better. They can modify immune cells to recognize and attack cancer\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Um.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:24],[00:33]] A: That sounds amazing! Can you tell me more about CAR T-cell therapy? How exactly does modifying T-cells help patients with blood cancers like leukemia?\n[[00:34],[00:52]] B: CAR T-cell therapy works by supercharging a patient's own immune cells. Doctors take T-cells from the blood and add special receptors to spot cancer. When put back in the body, these modified cells hunt down and destroy cancer cells very effectively.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] B: Sure.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Mm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and logical consistency of the dialogue.\n\n1. **A's first turn to B's first turn:** A asks for a simple explanation of how genetic engineering fights cancer. B provides a direct and simple answer, explaining that scientists modify immune cells to attack cancer. This response is perfectly relevant and coherent.\n2. **A's second turn to B's second turn:** A builds on B's previous answer by asking for more detail about a specific method, CAR T-cell therapy. This is a logical follow-up. B then explains the process of CAR T-cell therapy clearly and directly, answering A's question in full.\n\nThe conversation flows logically, with each turn directly addressing the previous one. The topic is maintained and developed coherently.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:**\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's first turn ending at [00:11] and B's response starting at [00:12]. This is a natural and brief pause.\n * There is no pause between B's turn ending at [00:24] and A's turn starting at [00:24]. The transition is immediate and smooth.\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's second turn ending at [00:33] and B's response starting at [00:34]. This is also a natural and brief pause.\n There are no prolonged or awkward pauses between speaker turns.\n\n2. **Overlaps:**\n * The transcript shows several short utterances from speaker B (e.g., \"Um,\" \"Yeah, yeah,\" \"Sure\") during their own main speaking turns. These are not overlaps with speaker A but are natural speech disfluencies or fillers that occur within a single speaker's turn.\n * There are no instances where speaker A and speaker B are talking over each other. The turn-taking is clean and orderly.\n\nThe interaction is very fluent, with smooth transitions and no disruptive overlaps or pauses.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/177",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:09]] A: Sarah, I'm so sorry about the towels. I was cooking dinner and I accidentally set them on fire. I put the fire out right away, but they were\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: Sure.\n[[00:04],[00:05]] A: Really.\n[[00:08],[00:13]] B: Wait, you set them on fire? Are you okay? Was there any other damage?\n[[00:10],[00:11]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:14],[00:19]] A: I'm fine, and no, there wasn't any other damage. The towels were just ruined.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] A: Really.\n[[00:20],[00:25]] B: It's okay, honey. Accidents happen. It's not a big deal.\n[[00:22],[00:23]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:25],[00:30]] A: I know, but I feel really bad about it. I'll go to the store and get some new towels tomorrow.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:30],[00:38]] B: There's no need to do that, Mary. We have plenty of other towels we can use in the meantime, so there's no rush to replace them.\n[[00:33],[00:33]] B: Sure.\n[[00:34],[00:35]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:39],[00:44]] A: I appreciate that, but I still feel like I should replace them. It was my mistake, after all.\n[[00:41],[00:41]] A: Sure.\n[[00:46],[00:48]] B: I'm positive. Don't worry about it.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation follows a logical and coherent path from start to finish. Speaker A starts by apologizing for ruining towels. Speaker B's response is highly relevant, shifting focus from the towels to Speaker A's well-being (\"Are you okay?\"). Speaker A then directly answers B's questions. The subsequent turns continue this logical progression, with B offering reassurance and A expressing guilt and a desire to make amends. Each utterance is a direct and appropriate response to the preceding one, maintaining perfect topic coherence.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The conversation flows naturally with no awkward or prolonged pauses between turns. The gaps are typically one second or less, which is characteristic of smooth turn-taking. While there are several instances of overlapping speech (e.g., at [00:08], [00:10], [00:16]), they are all very brief (1-2 seconds). These overlaps function as natural backchannels (\"Uh huh,\" \"Sure\") or as a contextually appropriate interruption due to surprise (\"Wait, you set them on fire?\"). They do not disrupt the flow but rather enhance the naturalness of the dialogue, indicating active listening and engagement. There are no harmful, extended overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/177",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hey there. Thanks for taking the time to talk with me.\n[[00:03],[00:04]] B: No problem, what's up?\n[[00:05],[00:10]] A: I was just looking over my website and I wanted to get your opinion on\n[[00:07],[00:08]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:09],[00:13]] B: Sorry to cut in, but is this about the design or the content of the website?\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: Right.\n[[00:14],[00:25]] A: It's mainly about the content. Specifically, on my About page, I have a lot of information about myself. But I'm not sure if it's too much or not enough. What do you think?\n[[00:17],[00:18]] A: Really.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:26],[00:42]] B: Well, it sounds like you're pretty confident in who you are and what you do. So I think it's fine. But some people might want to know more about you before they decide to work with you. Maybe a brief video introduction could also help make a personal connection.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Sure.\n[[00:33],[00:34]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:35],[00:35]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:42],[00:52]] A: Actually, that's a good point. Maybe I should also include some testimonials or case studies to give potential clients a better idea of my work.\n[[00:45],[00:46]] A: Sure.\n[[00:47],[00:48]] A: I see.\n[[00:53],[00:59]] B: Yeah, that makes sense. Testimonials could definitely help. I'll definitely keep that in mind. Thanks for the advice!",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation starts with a clear purpose from speaker A, to get an opinion on their website's content. Speaker B's clarifying question ([[00:09],[00:13]]) \"is this about the design or the content of the website?\" is highly relevant and helps to focus the conversation effectively. Each subsequent turn logically builds on the previous one. A explains the problem with the 'About' page, B offers a constructive opinion and a suggestion (video introduction), and A accepts the feedback and adds their own related idea (testimonials). The entire exchange is coherent, on-topic, and collaborative.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the gaps are consistently around one second, which is natural for a conversation. The one notable overlap occurs at [[00:09],[00:10]], where B interrupts A. However, B handles this gracefully by immediately apologizing (\"Sorry to cut in\"), and the interruption serves a useful purpose of clarifying the topic. The other short utterances (e.g., \"Uh huh,\" \"Mm hmm\") are brief backchannels that indicate active listening and do not disrupt the speaker's flow. There are no extended or disruptive overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/178",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Oh my god, are you okay?\n[[00:02],[00:04]] B: Yeah, I'm fine. Are you hurt?\n[[00:04],[00:09]] A: I don't think so. Let me check. (Proceeds to check himself for injuries)\n[[00:06],[00:07]] A: Uh.\n[[00:10],[00:11]] B: What happened?\n[[00:11],[00:17]] A: I hit a patch of ice and lost control of the car. We skidded off the road and hit a\n[[00:14],[00:15]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:15],[00:21]] B: Wait, did you say ice? I didn't even notice it was that cold. Do you think the weather changed suddenly?\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:22],[00:27]] A: It might have. I was just going to say we hit a tree. Shit, that's lucky we're both alive.\n[[00:24],[00:25]] A: Right.\n[[00:28],[00:31]] B: Yeah, I know. I'm just glad you're okay.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. The conversation starts appropriately after a presumed accident, with Speaker A checking on Speaker B. B's response is a direct answer and a reciprocal question about A's well-being. The conversation proceeds logically, with B asking for an explanation (\"What happened?\") and A providing one. B's interruption to ask about the \"ice\" is a natural and relevant reaction to new information. A then answers B's question before finishing their previous statement about hitting a tree. Every turn is a direct, logical, and coherent response to the preceding one, maintaining a clear and consistent topic.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent and highly natural. There are no prolonged pauses between turns that would suggest a breakdown in communication. The overlaps that do occur are natural and typical of an urgent or excited conversation. For instance, B's interruption at [00:15] (\"Wait, did you say ice?\") is a realistic reaction and doesn't disrupt the flow; rather, it reflects genuine engagement. The brief backchannels (\"Mhm\", \"Yeah, yeah\") are also characteristic of a smooth, cooperative conversation. There are no extended, competitive overlaps that make it difficult to understand the speakers.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/179",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: That origami crane tutorial was great! Could you explain the steps again but in simpler terms? I want to make sure I understand each part clearly before I start folding.\n[[00:10],[00:24]] B: Of course! Let me break it down more simply. First, fold your square paper diagonally both ways and unfold. Then fold it horizontally and vertically and\n[[00:14],[00:16]] B: Cool.\n[[00:17],[00:17]] B: Um.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:23],[00:32]] A: The star box suggestion was perfect! Since I enjoyed that, could you recommend another origami project that's slightly more challenging but still beginner-friendly?\n[[00:33],[00:51]] B: How about trying an origami butterfly? It builds on the skills you've learned but adds some new folding techniques. You'll need to make precise mountain and valley folds, and the wings have a nice 3D effect when complete. It's rewarding without being too difficult.\n[[00:38],[00:39]] B: Sure.\n[[00:40],[00:41]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:42],[00:43]] B: Hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and logically coherent. In the first exchange, Speaker B provides a direct and simplified explanation of the origami steps as requested by Speaker A. In the second exchange, after Speaker A shifts the topic to a new project, Speaker B offers a relevant suggestion (an origami butterfly) and justifies why it's a suitable next step, perfectly addressing A's request for something \"slightly more challenging but still beginner-friendly.\" The conversation progresses naturally and maintains topic coherence throughout.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There is a very minor, one-second overlap from [00:23] to [00:24] where Speaker A begins their turn just before Speaker B finishes. This is a very brief and natural overlap that does not disrupt the conversational flow. There are no prolonged or harmful pauses between turns; the one-second gap between A's second turn and B's response is a normal conversational pause. The short interjections by Speaker B (\"Cool.\", \"Um.\", \"Sure.\") are typical fillers and do not negatively affect the interaction.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/179",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: Could you explain the key differences between cyclones and tornadoes in simpler terms? I'm trying to understand which one is more dangerous and why they form in different places.\n[[00:11],[00:23]] B: Cyclones form over warm oceans and cover huge areas, sometimes hundreds of miles wide. They bring heavy rain and strong winds that last for days. Tornadoes form over\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Um.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:22],[00:31]] A: That helps, but can you tell me more about how cyclones develop? What makes them grow so big compared to tornadoes, and why do they need warm ocean water to form?\n[[00:32],[00:50]] B: Cyclones need warm ocean water because it evaporates and fuels the storm. The warmer the water, the stronger the cyclone can grow. The Earth's spin helps it form a huge rotating system. Tornadoes form quickly from thunderstorms and don't need oceans, which is why they're smaller but faster.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] B: Really.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] B: Um.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] B: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B's first response directly addresses Speaker A's initial multipart question about the differences between cyclones and tornadoes, their formation locations, and their relative danger. Speaker A's follow-up question is a logical continuation, seeking deeper clarification on how cyclones develop. Speaker B's second response is also highly relevant, providing a clear explanation of the role of warm water and the Earth's spin in cyclone formation, directly answering A's specific questions. The conversation is coherent and logically structured, with each turn building upon the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The pauses between speaker turns are brief and natural (1 second), facilitating a smooth conversational flow. There is one very minor overlap of one second ([[00:22],[00:23]]) where Speaker A begins speaking just before Speaker B finishes. This is a common feature of natural, engaged conversation and is not disruptive. The other utterances listed during Speaker B's turns ([[00:14],[00:15]], [[00:16],[00:17]], etc.) are filler words from Speaker B, not interruptions from Speaker A, and thus do not negatively impact the interactional fluency. There are no prolonged or disruptive overlaps or pauses.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_4_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_4/180",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:14]] A: I'm going through a very difficult divorce after discovering my husband's infidelity over many years. Could you help me understand how to create an effective crowdfunding campaign to save our family home while protecting my children's privacy?\n[[00:16],[00:23]] B: I'm so sorry you're going through this. For crowdfunding, first pick a trusted\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:21],[00:33]] A: What specific details should I include in my campaign description to make it compelling yet appropriate for my children's sake? How can I explain our situation honestly without causing them embarrassment?\n[[00:34],[00:55]] B: Focus on your positive goals like keeping a stable home for your daughters. You could say \"After unexpected life changes, I'm working hard to maintain our family home.\" Share your work ethic and love for your children rather than the painful details. Include photos of your home or happy family moments that show what you're protecting.\n[[00:40],[00:41]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:42],[00:43]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:44],[00:45]] B: Mm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and coherence of the dialogue.\n\n1. **A's initial question ([00:00]-[00:14]):** Speaker A clearly states their problem (divorce, saving the family home) and asks for specific advice on a crowdfunding campaign, with a key constraint of protecting their children's privacy. The question is clear and on-topic.\n2. **B's initial response ([00:16]-[00:23]):** Speaker B starts with an appropriate expression of empathy and then begins to directly answer the question about crowdfunding. The response is relevant.\n3. **A's follow-up question ([00:21]-[00:33]):** Speaker A refines their initial question, asking for specifics on what details to include in the campaign description to be compelling without embarrassing the children. This is a logical and coherent follow-up, staying perfectly on topic.\n4. **B's final response ([00:34]-[00:55]):** Speaker B provides an excellent, detailed, and highly relevant answer. The advice directly addresses A's dual concerns of being compelling and protecting privacy by suggesting a focus on positive goals, providing sample language, and recommending appropriate visuals.\n\nThe dialogue is logically consistent and maintains perfect topic coherence. Speaker B's responses are directly relevant to Speaker A's questions.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, focusing on pauses and overlaps.\n\n1. **Pause between turns ([00:14]-[00:16]):** There is a 2-second pause between A's first turn and B's response. This is a natural and acceptable length for a pause in conversation.\n2. **Overlap ([00:21]-[00:23]):** Speaker A begins their follow-up question while B is still speaking. This is a brief, 2-second overlap where A interrupts to clarify their need. In a natural conversation about an emotional topic, this type of interruption to get to a more specific point is common and not disruptive.\n3. **Pause between turns ([00:33]-[00:34]):** There is a short, 1-second pause between A's question and B's answer, indicating a very smooth and responsive turn transition.\n4. **Backchanneling Overlaps ([00:40]-[00:45]):** The transcript shows several instances of \"Okay, okay,\" \"Yeah, yeah,\" and \"Mm\" attributed to speaker B while B is giving a longer answer. This is likely a transcription error, and these are backchanneling cues from Speaker A, indicating they are listening and engaged. As such, these brief overlaps are positive signs of a fluent, interactive conversation, not harmful interruptions.\n\nThere are no prolonged, awkward pauses or extended, disruptive overlaps. The interaction flows naturally and conversationally.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/180",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: The wind is cold and I can see my breath.\n[[00:04],[00:06]] B: You should probably put on a jacket then.\n[[00:06],[00:09]] A: Yeah, I think I will. Thanks for the suggestion.\n[[00:11],[00:14]] B: No problem. It's getting pretty chilly out.\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:15],[00:21]] A: Yeah, I can't believe how cold it is. I'm definitely going to need a jacket to keep\n[[00:18],[00:19]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:20],[00:23]] B: Speaking of jackets, do you have a favorite one for this kind of weather?\n[[00:21],[00:22]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:24],[00:37]] A: I do, actually. It's a thick, insulated one that always keeps me warm. But I was just saying I need a jacket to keep warm. Well, you don't want to catch a cold, especially with how unpredictable the weather has been lately.\n[[00:30],[00:31]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:39],[00:45]] B: Definitely not! Have you heard about the flu that's been going around lately? It's better to stay warm and healthy.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] B: Right.\n[[00:43],[00:43]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:46],[00:54]] A: No, I haven't heard about that. I'll make sure to stay warm. I'll go put on a jacket right now. Thanks again for the suggestion.\n[[00:50],[00:51]] A: Mm hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation begins with A's observation about the cold weather. B's response, suggesting A put on a jacket, is directly relevant and logical. The conversation then naturally progresses from the need for a jacket to a discussion about favorite jackets for the cold. This leads to a related topic of staying healthy and avoiding sickness like a cold or the flu, which is a logical extension of the initial topic. Each turn is a coherent continuation of the previous one, and the overall topic progression is smooth and easy to follow.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency of the dialogue is excellent. There are no long, awkward pauses between speaker turns; the gaps are brief and typical of a natural conversation (e.g., the 2-second pause between 00:02 and 00:04). The overlaps present are either brief backchannels (e.g., B's \"Uh huh\" at [00:21]) or short, natural interjections where one speaker begins slightly before the other has completely finished (e.g., the 1-second overlap between A and B from [00:20] to [00:21]). These minor overlaps contribute to a natural conversational flow rather than disrupting it. There are no instances of extended, competitive overlapping that would harm fluency.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/180",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hey, Mom. I wanted to talk to you about something.\n[[00:03],[00:07]] B: What is it, honey? You know you can tell me anything.\n[[00:04],[00:05]] B: Mm.\n[[00:08],[00:11]] A: I know, but this is kind of hard to talk about.\n[[00:11],[00:15]] B: It's okay, sweetie. You can take your time. I'm here for you.\n[[00:12],[00:14]] B: I see.\n[[00:16],[00:19]] A: Thanks, Mom. Okay, so here goes…I'm gay.\n[[00:17],[00:17]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:19],[00:26]] B: Oh, Izaya…I love you no matter what. You're still my son and I will always\n[[00:23],[00:23]] B: Sure.\n[[00:25],[00:33]] A: Wait, Mom, before you say anything else, I just want to know—are you really okay with this? I mean, I've been so worried about how you'd react.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:29],[00:31]] A: Sure.\n[[00:34],[00:41]] B: Of course, I am. I love you no matter what. But I was saying, you're still my son and I will always love you.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:42],[00:44]] A: Thanks, Mom. That means a lot to me.\n[[00:45],[00:50]] B: I'm here for you, honey. We can talk about this as much as you need to. I love you no matter what.\n[[00:47],[00:48]] B: Cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance.\n\n1. A initiates a serious conversation: \"I wanted to talk to you about something.\"\n2. B responds with encouragement: \"What is it, honey? You know you can tell me anything.\" This is a perfectly relevant and supportive response.\n3. A expresses difficulty: \"this is kind of hard to talk about.\" This logically follows his initial statement.\n4. B offers more reassurance: \"It's okay, sweetie. You can take your time.\" This directly addresses A's hesitation.\n5. A reveals the topic: \"I'm gay.\" This is the core of the conversation they have been building towards.\n6. B begins to respond with love and acceptance: \"Oh, Izaya…I love you no matter what.\" This is a direct and relevant reaction to A's statement.\n7. A interrupts to seek explicit confirmation: \"Wait, Mom... are you really okay with this?\" This interruption is highly relevant to the immediate context. A is anxious and needs clear confirmation before B continues.\n8. B provides that explicit confirmation and then finishes her original thought: \"Of course, I am... you're still my son and I will always love you.\" This directly answers A's question while maintaining the original supportive message.\n9. A expresses relief: \"Thanks, Mom. That means a lot to me.\" This is a logical and coherent response to B's reassurance.\n10. B reiterates her support.\n\nThe entire dialogue is logically consistent and maintains perfect topic coherence. Each turn is a direct and natural response to the previous one, creating a believable and emotional conversation.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pauses:**\nThere are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are quick and natural, for example, the gap between A's turn ending at [00:02] and B's starting at [00:03] is less than a second. This indicates a smooth conversational flow.\n\n**Overlaps:**\nThere is one notable overlap. B's turn at [[00:19],[00:26]] is interrupted by A's turn starting at [[00:25],[00:33]]. The overlap lasts for about one second ([00:25]-[00:26]). However, this is not a harmful fluency issue. It is a motivated interruption, signaled by A saying \"Wait, Mom...\". In a highly emotional conversation like this, such an interruption to seek immediate clarification or reassurance is very natural and realistic. It doesn't create confusion but rather enhances the dramatic quality of the interaction.\n\nThe other overlapping utterances (e.g., [[00:04],[00:05]] B: Mm, [[00:12],[00:14]] B: I see) are brief backchannels or fillers. They are short and do not disrupt the main speaker's message.\n\nOverall, the fluency is excellent. The flow is smooth, and the one major overlap is contextually appropriate and natural, not a sign of poor interactional skills.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/181",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hi, I'm looking to take out a loan.\n[[00:02],[00:05]] B: Certainly. How much would you like to\n[[00:03],[00:04]] B: Right.\n[[00:04],[00:08]] A: Sorry, before I say the amount, could you tell me what the interest rate would be?\n[[00:06],[00:07]] A: Mm.\n[[00:09],[00:21]] B: Of course. The interest rate on this loan will be 15%, and you'll need to repay it within one year. Is that acceptable to you, or would you prefer to discuss other repayment options?\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:22],[00:25]] A: That works for me. I'd like to borrow $1,000.\n[[00:23],[00:24]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:25],[00:27]] B: Great. Sign here please.\n[[00:27],[00:29]] A: (signs loan agreement)\n[[00:29],[00:33]] B: The money will be deposited into your account within three business days.\n[[00:30],[00:31]] B: Mm.\n[[00:34],[00:35]] A: Thanks again.\n[[00:35],[00:37]] B: No problem, have a nice day.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A initiates the conversation with a clear goal: \"to take out a loan.\" Speaker B's response is directly relevant, starting the process by asking for the loan amount. Speaker A then makes a logical and relevant counter-query about the interest rate, which is a crucial piece of information. Speaker B provides a clear and comprehensive answer, also proactively offering other options. The conversation continues in this logical manner, with each turn directly addressing the previous one, from stating the loan amount to signing the agreement and confirming the transaction. The topic is coherent throughout.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is high. There are no prolonged or awkward pauses between turns; the longest pause is only one second, which is natural in conversation. There is a brief overlap between [00:04] and [00:05] where A interrupts B to ask a question. This type of interruption is common and handled naturally with A's use of \"Sorry,\" making the interaction feel authentic rather than disruptive. The other overlaps are single-speaker utterances (backchannels or fillers like \"Mm,\" \"Yeah, yeah\") and do not interfere with the flow of the dialogue between the two speakers. The conversation flows smoothly and naturally.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/181",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:09]] A: Could you explain how the natural environment in Avatar helps create such amazing visual imagery? I was completely immersed in Pandora's world while watching it.\n[[00:10],[00:25]] B: In Avatar, Pandora's environment is full of glowing plants and floating mountains. These unique features make the world feel magical and real at the\n[[00:15],[00:15]] B: I see.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Cool.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:24],[00:33]] A: What specific techniques did the filmmakers use to make Pandora's nature look so realistic and immersive? I remember everything felt alive and vibrant.\n[[00:35],[00:50]] B: The filmmakers combined CGI with real nature references to create Pandora. They used advanced 3D effects and motion capture for the creatures. The glowing plants and detailed textures made everything feel touchable and alive.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] B: I see.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Ummm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue transcript for Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\n\n1. **Response Relevance Analysis:**\n * Speaker A starts by asking a question about how the environment in the movie *Avatar* creates its visual imagery.\n * Speaker B provides a direct and relevant answer, mentioning \"glowing plants and floating mountains\" as key elements.\n * Speaker A then asks a follow-up question, seeking more specific details about the filmmaking techniques used. This is a logical continuation of the topic.\n * Speaker B responds with specific techniques like \"CGI,\" \"3D effects,\" and \"motion capture,\" directly answering A's question.\n * The conversation is thematically coherent, with each turn logically following the previous one. Both speakers stay on topic and contribute meaningfully to the discussion. The relevance is excellent.\n\n2. **Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\n * **Pauses:** There is a 1-second pause between the first and second turns ([[00:09],[00:10]]) and a 2-second pause between the third and fourth turns ([[00:33],[00:35]]). These pauses are brief and represent natural turn-taking, causing no disruption.\n * **Overlaps:** There are several instances of overlapping speech.\n * [[00:15],[00:15]] B: I see.\n * [[00:16],[00:17]] B: Cool.\n * [[00:18],[00:19]] B: Mhm.\n * [[00:24],[00:33]] A: (starts while B is finishing)\n * [[00:39],[00:40]] B: Mhm.\n * [[00:41],[00:42]] B: I see.\n * [[00:43],[00:44]] B: Ummm.\n * The key observation is that all of these overlaps are extremely brief (1 second or less). While it is unusual for the transcript to show Speaker B overlapping with themselves, these are not \"extended overlaps\" or \"prolonged overlapping turns,\" which the scoring criteria identify as harmful. They function as very short interjections. Given their brevity, they do not significantly disrupt the flow of the main speaker's sentences. According to the rule that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" the fluency can be considered appropriate and natural. There are no long pauses or disruptive, extended overlaps.\n\n3. **Overall Score Calculation:**\n * Response Relevance is excellent.\n * Interactional Fluency is also considered excellent because there are no harmful prolonged pauses or extended overlaps; all interruptions are brief.\n * Since both criteria are met for the highest quality, the overall score is 2.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency of the dialogue is excellent. The pauses between speaker turns are brief and natural (e.g., the 1-second pause from [00:09] to [00:10] and the 2-second pause from [00:33] to [00:35]). While there are several instances of overlapping speech, they are all very short, lasting only a second or less. These brief overlaps, such as the backchannels (\"I see.\", \"Mhm.\") and the slight turn overlap from speaker A at [00:24], do not disrupt the flow of the conversation. The dialogue avoids the pitfalls of prolonged pauses or extended, disruptive overlaps, resulting in a smooth and natural-sounding interaction.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/182",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: That's really interesting about the preservation efforts! Could you explain more about these special cleaning techniques they use, and how do they train the local teams to handle such delicate restoration work?\n[[00:10],[00:24]] B: The teams use gentle methods like laser cleaning and chemical poultices that won't harm the stone. For training, experts from organizations like UNESCO work closely with Cambodian artisans,\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Um.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: I see.\n[[00:19],[00:19]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:23],[00:34]] A: I'm curious about those chemical poultices you mentioned—what exactly are they made of, and how do they safely remove moss without damaging those ancient carvings that are so precious?\n[[00:35],[00:45]] B: The poultices are usually made from natural materials like cellulose mixed with mild cleaning agents. They're applied like a paste, left to dry,\n[[00:38],[00:38]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:39],[00:41]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:43],[00:58]] A: That makes sense! Speaking of wear and tear, how do they manage the huge number of tourists visiting Angkor Wat every year while still protecting the temple from damage? Do they limit visitors or have special rules?\n[[00:58],[01:10]] B: Yes, they've implemented several measures! There are designated walking paths to keep visitors away from fragile areas, and some sections have restricted access. During peak\n[[01:02],[01:02]] B: Sure.\n[[01:03],[01:04]] B: Mm.\n[[01:04],[01:05]] B: Cool.\n[[01:09],[01:21]] A: That's good to hear! But with climate change becoming a bigger threat, what new challenges is Angkor Wat facing from extreme weather, and are there any special projects to protect it from storms or rising temperatures?\n[[01:22],[01:42]] B: Heavy rains and humidity are the biggest concerns now—they speed up erosion and mold growth. Teams are installing better drainage systems and monitoring moisture levels constantly. There's also research into protective coatings that could shield the stone without altering its appearance. It's an ongoing battle against the elements!\n[[01:28],[01:28]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[01:29],[01:30]] B: Hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B consistently provides direct and informative answers to Speaker A's questions. For instance, when A asks about cleaning techniques and training [[00:00],[00:10]], B responds specifically with \"laser cleaning,\" \"chemical poultices,\" and details about UNESCO's involvement [[00:10],[00:24]]. The conversation maintains strong topic coherence, with each of A's questions logically following up on B's previous statements or smoothly transitioning to a related aspect of Angkor Wat's preservation (from restoration to tourism management to climate change). The entire exchange is logical, consistent, and on-topic.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no prolonged pauses between turns that would disrupt the flow of conversation. The turn-taking is smooth and natural. There are a few instances of brief overlap, such as A starting to speak at [[00:23]] while B finishes at [[00:24]], and A starting at [[00:43]] while B finishes at [[00:45]]. These overlaps are short (1-2 seconds) and occur at the transition between turns, which is typical of an engaged and natural conversation. They are not disruptive and do not hinder comprehension. The flow is very smooth and conversational.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/182",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:07]] A: I don't care what you say, I'm not going to stop talking. I have something important to say and nobody is going to\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: Um.\n[[00:04],[00:04]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:06],[00:11]] B: Jeremias, please calm down. You're disrupting the class.\n[[00:07],[00:09]] B: Cool.\n[[00:11],[00:19]] A: No, I won't calm down! This is important. Somebody needs to listen to what I have to say, even if it's not the right time or place.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] A: Right.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] A: I see.\n[[00:19],[00:26]] B: Jeremias, if you don't calm down and start following the rules of the classroom, I'm going to have to ask you to leave.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:23],[00:24]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:27],[00:32]] A: Fine! I'll leave then! But nobody's going to stop me from saying what I need to say.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] A: Um.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and logical consistency of the dialogue.\n- Speaker A begins by defiantly stating they will not be silenced.\n- Speaker B responds directly to this outburst by asking them to calm down and pointing out the disruption. This is a relevant and logical response from an authority figure (e.g., a teacher).\n- Speaker A rejects B's request, re-emphasizing the importance of what they have to say. This is a consistent continuation of their initial defiant stance.\n- Speaker B escalates the situation by giving an ultimatum: calm down or leave. This is a logical next step in managing a defiant person in a structured environment like a classroom.\n- Speaker A accepts the consequence (leaving) but maintains their defiant attitude. This is a coherent conclusion to the exchange.\nThe dialogue follows a clear, logical, and coherent progression of an argument between a disruptive individual and an authority figure. Each turn is a relevant response to the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, focusing on harmful overlaps and pauses.\n- **Overlaps:** There is a one-second overlap between speaker A and B from [00:06] to [00:07]. Speaker A is still talking (\"...nobody is going to\") when Speaker B begins to interrupt (\"Jeremias, please calm down.\"). In the context of a heated argument and a person trying to regain control of a situation, this type of interruption is not a flaw; it is a natural and realistic feature of the conversation that enhances the sense of conflict. There are no other significant or prolonged overlaps between speakers. The various short utterances (like \"Um,\" \"Hmm,\" \"Right\") are transcribed within the main speaker's turn and represent natural hesitations, not disruptive overlaps.\n- **Pauses:** There are no long or awkward pauses between turns. The transition from B ending at [00:26] to A starting at [00:27] is a natural one-second pause. Other turn transitions are immediate (latched), which is appropriate for the fast pace of an argument.\nThe conversational flow is natural and dynamic, effectively portraying a tense interaction without any technically disruptive fluency issues.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/184",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: I'm sorry, Alex, but you know the rules. No smoking in the building.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Mm.\n[[00:05],[00:06]] B: But I just had one cigarette!\n[[00:07],[00:10]] A: One cigarette can start a fire. You know that.\n[[00:08],[00:09]] A: Really.\n[[00:10],[00:12]] B: Fine, I'll go outside.\n[[00:12],[00:13]] A: Good idea.\n[[00:14],[00:19]] B: I'm sorry, Kalani, but I really don't want to go outside to smoke. It's cold and\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Mm.\n[[00:18],[00:29]] A: But Alex, the rules are there for a reason. Even if it's cold and wet, smoking inside is a fire hazard. Plus, it affects the air quality for everyone in the building.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] A: Uh.\n[[00:23],[00:24]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:30],[00:34]] B: I get that it's a fire hazard, but can't we have a designated indoor smoking area?\n[[00:31],[00:33]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:35],[00:41]] A: Unfortunately, the building policies are strict about this. If you want to smoke, you'll have to go outside.\n[[00:38],[00:39]] A: Uh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for Response Relevance.\n\n1. **A [00:00-00:04]:** States the rule about no smoking. This sets the topic.\n2. **B [00:05-00:06]:** Responds with a defense (\"just one cigarette\"). This is a direct and relevant reply to A's statement.\n3. **A [00:07-00:10]:** Counters B's defense by explaining the danger (\"can start a fire\"). This is a logical and coherent continuation of the argument.\n4. **B [00:10-00:12]:** Concedes and agrees to go outside. This is a relevant resolution to the immediate conflict.\n5. **A [00:12-00:13]:** Affirms B's decision.\n6. **B [00:14-00:19]:** Re-raises the issue by explaining *why* they don't want to go outside (it's cold). This is relevant as it provides more context for their initial reluctance.\n7. **A [00:18-00:29]:** Directly addresses B's complaint about the cold but reiterates the importance of the rule (fire hazard, air quality). The response is highly relevant and expands the reasoning.\n8. **B [00:30-00:34]:** Acknowledges the fire hazard and proposes a compromise (designated indoor area). This shows B is listening and engaging logically with A's points.\n9. **A [00:35-00:41]:** Rejects the compromise by citing strict building policies and restates the only available option. This is a direct and relevant answer to B's question.\n\nOverall, the dialogue is thematically consistent and logically structured. Each turn is a direct and relevant response to the previous one, creating a coherent conversation.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for Interactional Fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pauses:**\n- Between A at [00:04] and B at [00:05]: 1-second pause. Natural.\n- Between B at [00:06] and A at [00:07]: 1-second pause. Natural.\n- Between B at [00:12] and A at [00:12]: 0-second pause. Smooth transition.\n- Between A at [00:13] and B at [00:14]: 1-second pause. Natural.\n- Between A at [00:29] and B at [00:30]: 1-second pause. Natural.\n- Between B at [00:34] and A at [00:35]: 1-second pause. Natural.\nThere are no long or awkward pauses in the conversation. The turn-taking is smooth.\n\n**Overlaps:**\n- The transcript shows several instances of a speaker overlapping with themselves (e.g., A at [00:01], B at [00:16], A at [00:21]). These are transcribed backchannels or filler words (\"Mm\", \"Uh\") and are a feature of natural speech, not disruptive overlaps between speakers.\n- There is a minor overlap between A's turn starting at [00:18] and B's turn ending at [00:19]. A begins speaking just before B finishes. This one-second overlap is very common in natural conversation and indicates engagement, not a disruption. It is not an extended or harmful overlap.\n\nThe interactional flow is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth, pauses are natural, and there are no disruptive, extended overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/184",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:12]] A: I really appreciate all these pie crust tips, but could you explain more about how to prevent the bottom crust from getting soggy when baking a blueberry pie? That's always been my biggest challenge.\n[[00:13],[00:21]] B: Preventing a soggy crust is tricky but doable. First, try blind baking the crust before adding\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Mm.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Right.\n[[00:20],[00:29]] A: That sounds helpful, but what if I don't have pie weights? Are there any other methods I could use to keep the crust crisp when baking with juicy blueberry filling?\n[[00:30],[00:51]] B: If you don't have pie weights, you can still protect your crust. Sprinkle a thin layer of breadcrumbs or ground nuts on the bottom before adding filling - they'll absorb extra juice. Also, make sure your filling isn't too watery by mixing the berries with cornstarch or tapioca to thicken the juices as they bake.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] B: Really.\n[[00:38],[00:39]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:40],[00:41]] B: Mm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user dialogue follows a logical and coherent path. Speaker A asks a specific question about preventing a soggy pie crust. Speaker B begins to answer by suggesting blind baking. Speaker A then refines their question by adding a constraint (no pie weights), which is a relevant follow-up. Speaker B's final response directly addresses this new constraint, offering two practical and relevant solutions. The entire conversation remains on topic, and the responses are directly relevant to the questions asked.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The pause between the first and second turns is a natural 1 second. There is a brief, 1-second overlap between speaker A and B from [00:20] to [00:21] as A begins to speak just before B finishes. This type of brief overlap is common in natural, engaged conversation and does not hinder communication. The other listed overlaps ([00:16]-[00:18] and [00:36]-[00:41]) are self-corrections or backchannels from speaker B during their own turn, which is also a feature of natural speech and does not disrupt the flow. There are no long, awkward pauses or extended, disruptive overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/184",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:12]] A: At yesterday's meeting, we discussed the new project plan and decided to start implementing it next quarter. This plan mainly involves resource allocation and team collaboration. We hope to\n[[00:03],[00:04]] A: Right.\n[[00:05],[00:06]] A: Cool.\n[[00:07],[00:08]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:12],[00:19]] B: Sorry to interrupt, I just thought of a question, about our existing budget, is it enough to support the implementation of this plan?\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Mm.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:20],[00:35]] A: This plan does need more financial support, but we have also considered some additional sources of funding. However, I haven't mentioned our application of automation tools We need to evaluate whether there are enough resources to support the use of these tools.\n[[00:24],[00:25]] A: Really.\n[[00:26],[00:27]] A: Right.\n[[00:28],[00:28]] A: Uh.\n[[00:36],[00:47]] B: Automation tools are certainly important, but I am more concerned about whether our team's current skills can match the requirements of these tools. Do we need to provide some training in this regard?\n[[00:39],[00:40]] B: Um.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] B: Okay,okay.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains a high degree of relevance and coherence. Speaker A introduces a new project plan. Speaker B interrupts with a very relevant question about the budget, which directly relates to the resource allocation mentioned by A. Speaker A answers the budget question and logically transitions to another resource-related topic: automation tools. Speaker B then builds upon this by raising a pertinent concern about the team's skills in relation to these new tools. Each turn is a logical and topically consistent follow-up to the previous one, creating a coherent and productive conversation.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is natural and smooth. There are no long, disruptive pauses between turns. The turn-taking is efficient. Speaker B's interruption at [00:12] is handled politely (\"Sorry to interrupt\") and is motivated by a relevant, on-topic question, which is a common and acceptable feature of natural dialogue. The other brief, overlapping utterances (e.g., \"Mm,\" \"Okay, okay,\" \"Right\") are typical backchannels that signify active listening and do not disrupt the flow of the conversation. Overall, the fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/185",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: I am looking for a good attraction in the centre.\n[[00:04],[00:07]] B: Ok, the Broughton House Gallery is in the centre and admission is free.\n[[00:05],[00:06]] B: Really.\n[[00:09],[00:13]] A: What type of attraction is the Broughton House Gallery and may I have the address?\n[[00:10],[00:11]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:14],[00:18]] B: It is a museum and the address is 98 King Street.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Mm.\n[[00:19],[00:23]] A: Thanks. I'm also looking for a train for Saturday. Can you assist me with that?\n[[00:20],[00:21]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:25],[00:30]] B: Yes, I can. Could you give me more information, such as, where you will departing\n[[00:27],[00:28]] B: Really.\n[[00:29],[00:35]] A: Sure, I'll be going from Cambridge to Stansted. I need to arrive by 9:30. Thanks.\n[[00:32],[00:33]] A: Right.\n[[00:36],[00:45]] B: The TR5580 train arrives at Stansted Airport by 9:08. Would you like to purchase some tickets or get more information?\n[[00:39],[00:39]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:40],[00:42]] B: Cool.\n[[00:46],[00:48]] A: Can I get the travel time and price please?\n[[00:49],[01:01]] B: Sure. It takes approximately 28 minutes and costs 8.08 pounds per ticket. Would you like me to help you with the booking or provide any additional details?\n[[00:54],[00:55]] B: Um.\n[[01:02],[01:05]] A: Actually, no thank you. That is all that I need.\n[[01:06],[01:07]] B: Ok! Have a great day!",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance and interactional fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n1. **A: [00:00-00:02]** asks for an attraction in the centre.\n2. **B: [00:04-00:07]** provides a relevant suggestion (Broughton House Gallery), its location (centre), and an extra useful detail (free admission). This is a perfectly relevant and helpful response.\n3. **A: [00:09-00:13]** asks for the type of attraction and the address. These are logical follow-up questions.\n4. **B: [00:14-00:18]** directly answers both questions (museum, 98 King Street). The response is coherent and relevant.\n5. **A: [00:19-00:23]** thanks B and smoothly transitions to a new, related task (booking a train). The topic shift is logical for this type of interaction.\n6. **B: [00:25-00:30]** confirms they can help and asks for necessary details (departure/arrival, time constraints). This is a relevant and necessary question to proceed.\n7. **A: [00:29-00:35]** provides all the requested information. The response is coherent and directly answers B's question.\n8. **B: [00:36-00:45]** provides a train that meets all of A's criteria (arrives by 9:08, which is before 9:30) and proactively offers next steps. This is highly relevant.\n9. **A: [00:46-00:48]** asks for more details (travel time and price), which is a logical next step.\n10. **B: [00:49-01:01]** provides the requested information and again offers to continue with the booking. This is a relevant and helpful response.\n11. **A: [01:02-01:05]** politely declines further help, indicating the conversation is complete.\n12. **B: [01:06-01:07]** provides a natural and appropriate closing.\n\nOverall, the dialogue is logically consistent and topically coherent from start to finish. All responses are directly relevant to the preceding turns.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, specifically looking for extended overlaps and long pauses.\n\n**Pause Analysis:**\n- [[00:02],[00:04]]: 2-second pause. Acceptable.\n- [[00:07],[00:09]]: 2-second pause. Acceptable.\n- [[00:13],[00:14]]: 1-second pause. Acceptable.\n- [[00:18],[00:19]]: 1-second pause. Acceptable.\n- [[00:23],[00:25]]: 2-second pause. Acceptable.\n- [[00:35],[00:36]]: 1-second pause. Acceptable.\n- [[00:45],[00:46]]: 1-second pause. Acceptable.\n- [[00:48],[00:49]]: 1-second pause. Acceptable.\n- [[01:01],[01:02]]: 1-second pause. Acceptable.\n- [[01:05],[01:06]]: 1-second pause. Acceptable.\nThere are no prolonged or awkward pauses between speaker turns. The timing is natural.\n\n**Overlap Analysis:**\n- There is a minor overlap between B's turn ending at [00:30] and A's turn starting at [00:29]. This is a one-second overlap and is very common in natural conversation, indicating smooth turn-taking rather than a problematic interruption.\n- All other listed overlaps (e.g., [[00:04],[00:07]] vs. [[00:05],[00:06]]) are instances of a speaker saying a filler word (\"Really,\" \"Uh huh,\" \"Mm\") during their own main utterance. These are not interactional overlaps between two different speakers and do not disrupt the flow of the conversation.\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent, with natural pacing and no disruptive overlaps or pauses.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/186",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: Hey, Mia. Wow, the fireworks are really something, huh?\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Mm.\n[[00:04],[00:08]] B: Yeah, they're amazing! I can't believe we actually get to see them in person.\n[[00:06],[00:07]] B: Sure.\n[[00:09],[00:18]] A: I know. It's crazy how much more impressive they are when you're actually here in person. The colors are so vibrant and the explosions are so\n[[00:11],[00:12]] A: Mm.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:17],[00:25]] B: Sorry to jump in, but did you notice how synchronized the fireworks are with the music? It's like they planned every single burst perfectly!\n[[00:20],[00:20]] B: Cool.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] B: Um.\n[[00:25],[00:38]] A: Yes, it's incredible! I was about to mention how loud the explosions are too. You're right, Mia. They really are something else when you're here in person. I'm so glad we decided to come out and see them together.\n[[00:29],[00:31]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] A: Sure.\n[[00:33],[00:34]] A: Right.\n[[00:39],[00:43]] B: Me too, Vanessa. This is definitely a night we'll remember for a long time.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] B: Cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent topic coherence and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates the conversation about the fireworks, and Speaker B immediately responds in agreement, adding their own observation. The conversation progresses naturally, with both speakers building upon each other's comments about the experience of seeing the fireworks in person. Even when Speaker B interrupts Speaker A, they acknowledge it (\"Sorry to jump in...\") and the topic remains perfectly relevant (observing the synchronization with music). Speaker A then gracefully incorporates B's point and finishes their own original thought. The conversation feels collaborative and is consistently focused on the shared experience.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very natural. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the speakers respond to each other promptly. For instance, there's no pause between A's opening at [00:04] and B's response at [00:04]. The 1-second gaps between other turns are negligible and typical of natural speech. There is a brief overlap from [00:17] to [00:18] where B begins speaking before A has finished. However, this is not a fluency error; it functions as a natural, excited interruption, which B even apologizes for, making the dialogue feel more authentic. The flow is smooth and conversational.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/186",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: So, what do you think?\n[[00:01],[00:05]] B: I think it's amazing! I can't believe we're actually here.\n[[00:02],[00:03]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:05],[00:10]] A: Yeah, me too. It's been on my bucket list for\n[[00:07],[00:08]] A: Really.\n[[00:09],[00:11]] B: Bucket list? What else is on there?\n[[00:12],[00:17]] A: Oh, lots of things. Traveling the world, visiting all seven continents, that kind of thing.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] A: Really.\n[[00:18],[00:22]] B: Sounds like we have a lot in common. I've always wanted to do those things too.\n[[00:19],[00:21]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:22],[00:29]] A: Really? We should definitely plan a trip together then. Where should we go first? I was thinking maybe Europe or Asia.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] A: Um.\n[[00:29],[00:35]] B: Before we decide, do you have any specific places in mind that you've been dreaming about?\n[[00:32],[00:33]] B: Uh.\n[[00:35],[00:42]] A: Hmmm, I don't know. There are so many places I want to see. I was about to say, where should we go first?\n[[00:37],[00:38]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:42],[00:47]] B: Well, we have all the time in the world to figure it out. I'm sure we'll come up with something eventually.\n[[00:44],[00:45]] B: Mm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains a high level of relevance and coherence. The conversation flows logically from a general impression of a place (\"what do you think?\") to a more personal topic (bucket lists) and then into a collaborative planning discussion (\"we should definitely plan a trip together\"). Speaker B's question, \"What else is on there?\" is a direct and natural follow-up to speaker A's mention of a \"bucket list.\" Speaker A's subsequent suggestion to plan a trip is a logical consequence of discovering their shared interests. The conversation remains on topic and progresses smoothly. The short, repeated interjections like \"That's cool\" or \"Really\" are slightly odd but are used as generic affirmations and do not derail the topic or create confusion.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no prolonged or disruptive pauses between turns; the speakers respond to each other promptly. The single one-second pause is well within the norms of natural conversation. The only instance of an overlap between the two different speakers occurs between [00:09] and [00:10]. This one-second overlap is brief and contextually appropriate, with speaker B eagerly latching onto speaker A's mention of a \"bucket list.\" This type of brief, enthusiastic overlap is common in natural, engaging conversations and does not hinder fluency. The other overlapping segments are instances of a speaker overlapping with their own utterance (e.g., saying \"Ummm\" while speaking), which does not affect the interactional flow between the two participants.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/186",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hey, Alonzo. Can we talk?\n[[00:03],[00:04]] B: Yeah, what's up?\n[[00:06],[00:08]] A: I feel like something's missing between us.\n[[00:09],[00:10]] B: What do you mean?\n[[00:11],[00:17]] A: I don't know. I just feel like I can't get close to you. It's like there's a wall between\n[[00:13],[00:15]] A: Um.\n[[00:17],[00:24]] B: Between us? I've been feeling a bit distant too, but I wasn't sure if it was just me. Do you think it's something specific?\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Sure.\n[[00:21],[00:21]] B: Cool.\n[[00:25],[00:33]] A: Maybe, but I can't quite put my finger on it. I know you love me, but it feels like there's something preventing us from being as close as we could be.\n[[00:29],[00:31]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:34],[00:36]] B: What can I do to help?\n[[00:38],[00:45]] A: I don't know. Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm being paranoid or overthinking things, but I can't shake this feeling.\n[[00:42],[00:42]] A: Sure.\n[[00:45],[00:52]] B: Or maybe we haven't had enough time to really connect lately. How about we plan something special, just the two of us?\n[[00:48],[00:50]] B: Really.\n[[00:54],[01:03]] A: That sounds nice. And, like you mentioned earlier, spending extra time together might help us figure out what's really going on.\n[[00:57],[00:57]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:59],[01:00]] A: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates a serious conversation about feeling a \"wall\" in the relationship. Speaker B responds with empathy and clarifying questions (\"What do you mean?\", \"I've been feeling a bit distant too...\"). Each turn logically builds on the previous one. B's suggestion to \"plan something special\" is a direct and constructive response to A's expressed feelings of distance. A's final response shows agreement and understanding, connecting B's suggestion back to the initial problem. The entire conversation is coherent and stays on topic.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. The pauses between turns are natural and appropriate for a thoughtful, serious conversation (e.g., the 2-second pauses at [[00:04],[00:06]] and [[00:36],[00:38]]). There are no prolonged or awkward silences. The dialogue features several instances of self-overlap (e.g., B saying \"Sure.\" at [[00:19],[00:20]] during their own turn), but these are very brief and act as filler words or affirmations within a single speaker's turn. They do not constitute harmful interruptions or extended overlaps between the two speakers. The turn-taking is smooth and cooperative throughout the dialogue.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/186",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:09]] A: Who would you say is the most versatile player on the California Gold team right now? I'm asking because I've heard they have several players who can play multiple positions really well.\n[[00:10],[00:18]] B: Unfortunately I don't have their current roster details, but I'd be happy to help you find that information. What\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: Mm.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:17],[00:26]] A: Since you mentioned not having the roster info handy, could you tell me where I might find the most reliable player statistics and performance analysis for the California Gold team?\n[[00:27],[00:33]] B: The team's official website is always the best starting point for accurate stats. Would\n[[00:30],[00:31]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:32],[00:42]] A: Yes please, I'd really appreciate if you could name a few more trustworthy websites or resources where I can find detailed player analysis and up-to-date statistics.\n[[00:42],[00:56]] B: Absolutely! Sports networks like ESPN and Yahoo Sports provide excellent coverage. Local sports journalists often offer unique insights you won't find elsewhere. Would you like me to check if there are any recent articles about the team?\n[[00:46],[00:47]] B: Um.\n[[00:48],[00:49]] B: Mm.\n[[00:50],[00:51]] B: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user A initiates the conversation by asking for a specific piece of information about a sports team. The user B acknowledges that it cannot provide the specific information requested (the most versatile player) but pivots to a helpful alternative: offering to find the team's roster. This is a relevant and logical response. User A then logically adjusts their request based on B's stated limitation, asking for sources for statistics instead. B provides a good primary source (the team's official website). A then asks for more sources, and B provides several excellent, relevant suggestions (ESPN, Yahoo Sports, local journalists). The entire dialogue is topically coherent and logically consistent, with each turn directly and relevantly addressing the preceding one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional flow is very smooth and natural. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns. For instance, the transition between A's first turn ending at [00:09] and B's response starting at [00:10] is a natural one-second pause. Similarly, the transition from A at [00:26] to B at [00:27] is seamless. There are a few minor overlaps, such as A starting at [00:17] while B is finishing their turn at [00:18], but this one-second overlap is typical of natural conversation and doesn't disrupt the flow. The other short utterances labeled as speaker B (e.g., at [00:12], [00:30], [00:46]) occur during B's own main speaking turn, which suggests they are likely transcription errors and should be attributed to A as backchannels. Interpreted as backchannels from the listener, they indicate engagement without being disruptive. Overall, the pacing is excellent, with no harmful pauses or extended overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/187",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:14]] A: Could you tell me more about the average costs of cancer treatment and how precision medicine might help make it more affordable? I'm particularly interested in understanding the financial impact on families and potential savings from personalized treatments.\n[[00:15],[00:26]] B: Cancer treatment costs can be very high, often over a hundred thousand dollars per year. Hospital stays, medications,\n[[00:18],[00:20]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] B: Sure.\n[[00:25],[00:40]] A: That's really concerning how expensive cancer care can be. Can you share some specific examples of how precision medicine has already helped reduce costs for certain types of cancer treatments? I'd like to understand real-world cases where this approach made a difference.\n[[00:41],[01:09]] B: Yes, there are good examples. For lung cancer patients with certain genetic markers, targeted drugs work better than chemotherapy with fewer side effects. This means fewer hospital stays and lower costs. Another example is breast cancer testing that identifies patients who won't benefit from chemotherapy, saving them from unnecessary expensive treatments. These personalized approaches are proving both effective and cost-saving.\n[[00:50],[00:51]] B: Sure.\n[[00:52],[00:53]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:54],[00:55]] B: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance and logical consistency.\n\n1. **A's first turn ([[00:00],[00:14]]):** A asks a clear, two-part question about the cost of cancer treatment and how precision medicine can help reduce that cost.\n2. **B's first turn ([[00:15],[00:26]]):** B directly addresses the first part of the question, providing a figure for the cost (\"over a hundred thousand dollars per year\") and naming contributing factors (\"Hospital stays, medications\"). This is a relevant and direct response.\n3. **A's second turn ([[00:25],[00:40]]):** A acknowledges B's answer and then asks a logical follow-up question, requesting specific examples of cost reduction through precision medicine. This maintains topic coherence and drives the conversation forward logically.\n4. **B's second turn ([[00:41],[01:09]]):** B provides a detailed and relevant answer to A's specific question. It gives two clear examples (lung cancer and breast cancer) and explains exactly how precision medicine leads to cost savings in those cases (avoiding ineffective chemotherapy, reducing side effects and hospital stays).\n\nThe conversation is logically structured, with each turn building upon the previous one. The responses are directly relevant to the questions asked, demonstrating excellent topic coherence.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, specifically looking for extended overlaps and long pauses.\n\n1. **Pauses:**\n * Between A's first turn ([[00:14]]) and B's first turn ([[00:15]]), there is a 1-second pause. This is a natural turn-taking gap.\n * Between A's second turn ([[00:40]]) and B's second turn ([[00:41]]), there is a 1-second pause. This is also a natural gap.\n * There are no long or awkward pauses in the conversation.\n\n2. **Overlaps:**\n * Between B's first turn ([[00:26]]) and A's second turn ([[00:25]]), there is a very brief, one-second overlap. This is a common and natural feature of engaged conversation and is not disruptive.\n * There are several instances of B's speech overlapping with itself (e.g., [[00:18],[00:20]] \"That's cool.\", [[00:50],[00:51]] \"Sure.\"). These are likely system artifacts rather than true conversational overlaps. While slightly unnatural, they are very brief and do not disrupt the flow of information between the speakers. They are not the \"extended\" or \"prolonged\" overlaps that are considered harmful.\n\nOverall, the turn-taking is smooth and well-paced. There are no significant fluency issues like long pauses or disruptive, extended overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/188",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: So, how are you feeling today?\n[[00:01],[00:04]] B: I'm feeling good today. How are you?\n[[00:04],[00:13]] A: I'm feeling better today. I'm happy to finally have a moment to myself where I can relax and not worry about\n[[00:07],[00:08]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:09],[00:10]] A: Really.\n[[00:12],[00:16]] B: Sorry to interrupt, but I just wanted to ask, what has been stressing you out lately?\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:17],[00:31]] A: It's been a combination of work and personal issues. But now that I have some time to myself, I'm trying to recharge. It's important to take some time for yourself every now and then so that you can maintain a healthy balance and avoid burnout.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:23],[00:24]] A: I see.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:32],[00:40]] B: Absolutely, I completely agree with that. But I'm curious, how do you usually spend your time when you're trying to recharge?\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: Right.\n[[00:41],[00:52]] A: I usually read a book or take a walk. I haven't mentioned that it feels good to know that everything is going to be alright in the end. It really helps in staying positive despite everything.\n[[00:45],[00:47]] A: Um.\n[[00:54],[01:05]] B: Yes, it's normal to feel overwhelmed when you've been through a lot. But it sounds like you're handling the situation well and staying positive despite everything. That's commendable.\n[[00:57],[00:58]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:59],[00:59]] B: Hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and logical consistency of the conversation.\n\n1. **A's opening question ([[00:00],[00:01]])** is a standard conversational starter.\n2. **B's response ([[00:01],[00:04]])** is directly relevant, answering A's question and reciprocating it.\n3. **A's response ([[00:04],[00:13]])** answers B's question and provides context about relaxing and not worrying, which logically sets up the next turn.\n4. **B's interruption and question ([[00:12],[00:16]])** is a direct follow-up to A mentioning \"worry.\" B is showing active listening by asking for more detail about the source of stress. This is highly relevant.\n5. **A's explanation ([[00:17],[00:31]])** directly answers B's question about the source of stress (work and personal issues) and expands on the topic of recharging, which is coherent with the previous turn.\n6. **B's response ([[00:32],[00:40]])** shows agreement and then asks a relevant follow-up question about *how* A recharges, keeping the conversation focused and moving it forward logically.\n7. **A's response ([[00:41],[00:52]])** answers B's question directly (reading, walking) and adds a related thought about staying positive, which is a natural thematic progression.\n8. **B's final comment ([[00:54],[01:05]])** validates A's feelings and commends them for their positive outlook. This is a supportive and highly relevant conclusion to the topic.\n\nOverall, the dialogue is thematically coherent, with each turn logically following the previous one. The speakers are engaged and build upon each other's contributions.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the flow of the conversation, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pauses:**\n* [[00:04],[00:04]]: No pause between B's turn ending and A's turn starting.\n* [[00:16],[00:17]]: A 1-second pause between B's turn and A's response. This is a natural, brief pause.\n* [[00:31],[00:32]]: A 1-second pause. Also natural.\n* [[00:40],[00:41]]: A 1-second pause. Also natural.\n* [[00:52],[00:54]]: A 2-second pause. This is slightly longer but still well within the normal range for formulating a thoughtful response. It does not feel awkward or disruptive.\nThere are no prolonged, harmful pauses in the dialogue.\n\n**Overlaps:**\n* There is a clear overlap between A's turn [[00:04],[00:13]] and B's turn [[00:12],[00:16]]. B starts speaking about 1 second before A finishes. However, B immediately mitigates this by saying, \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which is a polite and common way to handle an interjection in natural conversation. The overlap is brief and does not disrupt the flow; in fact, it shows B's engagement.\n* Other instances of overlapping timestamps (e.g., [[00:07],[00:08]], [[00:14],[00:15]], [[00:21],[00:22]]) are self-contained filler words or backchannels (\"Ummm,\" \"Uh huh,\" \"Okay, okay\") that are part of a speaker's own turn. These are natural elements of speech and do not constitute disruptive, overlapping turns.\n\nThe conversation flows smoothly with natural turn-taking. The single, brief interruption is handled politely and does not harm the interactional fluency.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/188",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:08]] A: John, I'm in the hospital. They diagnosed me with the flu and I feel awful. The pain is really bad and I can't breathe very\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: Really.\n[[00:04],[00:05]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:07],[00:11]] B: Oh, no! How are you doing? Are you getting the right treatment?\n[[00:08],[00:10]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:12],[00:24]] A: Not well. I'm in a lot of pain and having trouble breathing. The doctor said it's a severe case of the flu and they're keeping me overnight for observation and to make sure I respond to the treatment.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:24],[00:30]] B: That sounds serious. I'm so sorry you're feeling so bad. Is there anything I can do to help?\n[[00:27],[00:28]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:31],[00:36]] A: Just come to the hospital and be with me. I really need you right now.\n[[00:33],[00:34]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:37],[00:42]] B: Of course, I'll be there as soon as possible. Hang in there, Raine, you're going to be all right.\n[[00:39],[00:39]] B: Ummm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A initiates the conversation by stating they are in the hospital with the flu. Speaker B's response is immediately empathetic and relevant, asking about A's condition and treatment. A's subsequent replies provide more detail about their symptoms and the doctor's plan, directly answering B's questions. B continues to show concern and offers help, to which A makes a specific, relevant request for company. The conversation flows logically and coherently, with each turn being a direct and appropriate response to the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the transitions are smooth and natural. The overlaps present in the dialogue are brief backchannels (e.g., \"Mm hmm,\" \"Uh huh,\" \"Ummm\") or a short, one-second overlap where B interrupts A to express concern ([00:07]-[00:08]). These types of overlaps are typical of natural, engaged conversation and do not disrupt the flow. They indicate active listening and emotional engagement, which is appropriate for the serious topic.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/189",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:07]] A: I don't understand why I have to face the consequences of my choices. I'm so angry and frustrated right now.\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: I see.\n[[00:03],[00:05]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:08],[00:16]] B: Because that's how life works, Jovana. You make a choice and then you have to deal with the consequences, good or\n[[00:10],[00:12]] B: Really.\n[[00:13],[00:13]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:15],[00:19]] A: But why does it have to be this way? Why can't things just be easy for once?\n[[00:17],[00:17]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:20],[00:38]] B: Well, they're not easy because life isn't easy. It's full of challenges and obstacles. And if you want to achieve something, you have to work hard for it and be willing to face the consequences of your actions. It's not always fair, but it's how we grow stronger and wiser.\n[[00:25],[00:27]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:28],[00:29]] B: Really.\n[[00:30],[00:30]] B: Sure.\n[[00:38],[00:46]] A: I just wish things were different. That I didn't have to go through all this trouble just because of some stupid choices I made.\n[[00:41],[00:41]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:42],[00:43]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:46],[01:00]] B: Life isn't always fair, but that doesn't mean you should give up on yourself or your dreams. You can still achieve great things even if you've made some mistakes along the way. Just learn from those mistakes and keep moving forward.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A begins by expressing frustration about facing the consequences of their choices. Speaker B responds directly and appropriately, explaining that this is a fundamental aspect of life. Speaker A then questions why life has to be difficult, and B again provides a relevant, philosophical answer about challenges fostering growth. The conversation continues in this logical, coherent manner, with each turn directly addressing the previous one. The topic remains consistent throughout, focusing on personal responsibility, hardship, and growth.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. The turn-taking is smooth and natural. There are no long, awkward pauses between speakers. There is one minor overlap between [00:15] and [00:16] where A begins speaking just before B finishes, but this is a very brief, one-second overlap that is common in natural conversation and does not disrupt the flow. Other transcribed sounds like \"Hmm\" and \"Mm hmm\" function as backchannels, indicating active listening rather than disruptive interruptions. Overall, the dialogue flows smoothly without any significant fluency issues.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/189",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: So, what are your thoughts on ice cream?\n[[00:02],[00:13]] B: I think it's a great treat! I love how there are so many different flavours to choose from. I always find myself trying new flavours and being surprised by how much I\n[[00:06],[00:06]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:07],[00:08]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:13],[00:17]] A: Sorry to interrupt, but do you have a particular flavour that really stands out to you?\n[[00:15],[00:16]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:18],[00:35]] B: Oh, definitely! I recently tried a salted caramel flavour that was absolutely amazing. I was just sampling some of the different flavours and they were all so good. It's hard to pick a favourite because there are so many unique ones that each offer something different.\n[[00:23],[00:24]] B: Right.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] B: Mm.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:35],[00:43]] A: I know what you mean! But do you think you'll ever get tired of trying new flavours, or is that part of the excitement for you?\n[[00:39],[00:40]] A: Sure.\n[[00:44],[00:53]] B: That's a good question. I think it's part of the excitement, honestly. Trying new things and finding out which flavour is your favourite is what makes it so fun.\n[[00:46],[00:47]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:48],[00:49]] B: Uh huh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance.\n1. **A's opening question ([[00:00],[00:02]]):** \"So, what are your thoughts on ice cream?\" - This is a clear, open-ended question to start a conversation.\n2. **B's response ([[00:02],[00:13]]):** \"I think it's a great treat! I love how there are so many different flavours...\" - This is a direct and relevant answer to A's question, expanding on why they like ice cream.\n3. **A's interruption/question ([[00:13],[00:17]]):** \"...do you have a particular flavour that really stands out to you?\" - This is a logical follow-up question, seeking more specific information based on B's mention of \"so many different flavours.\" It maintains topic coherence.\n4. **B's response ([[00:18],[00:35]]):** \"Oh, definitely! I recently tried a salted caramel flavour...\" - This is a direct and relevant answer to A's specific question, providing an example and then elaborating on the general difficulty of choosing a single favorite.\n5. **A's question ([[00:35],[00:43]]):** \"...do you think you'll ever get tired of trying new flavours, or is that part of the excitement for you?\" - This question logically follows from B's emphasis on trying different flavors and is a relevant inquiry into their long-term enjoyment.\n6. **B's response ([[00:44],[00:53]]):** \"That's a good question. I think it's part of the excitement, honestly.\" - This is a direct and coherent answer to A's question.\n\nThe conversation flows logically, with each turn directly addressing or building upon the previous one. The topic of ice cream and its flavors is maintained consistently throughout. Therefore, the response relevance is excellent.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:**\n * Between A's turn ending at [00:02] and B's starting at [00:02]: No pause.\n * Between A's turn ending at [00:17] and B's starting at [00:18]: A 1-second pause. This is a natural, brief pause in conversation and not problematic.\n * Between A's turn ending at [00:43] and B's starting at [00:44]: A 1-second pause. This is also a natural conversational pause.\n * There are no prolonged, awkward pauses between speaker turns.\n\n2. **Overlaps:**\n * The primary overlap occurs between [00:13] and [00:17], where A begins speaking before B has finished their turn ending at [00:13]. However, this is a very brief interruption. Speaker A even acknowledges it (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), which makes it a polite and natural conversational maneuver rather than a disruptive overlap.\n * The other listed overlaps (e.g., [[00:06],[00:06]], [[00:15],[00:16]], [[00:23],[00:24]]) are backchannels or fillers spoken by the *same person* who holds the main speaking turn. These are not inter-speaker overlaps and do not disrupt the flow of the conversation between A and B. They are typical conversational fillers.\n\nThe turn-taking is smooth, with no long pauses or disruptive, extended overlaps. The single brief interruption is handled politely and is a normal feature of engaged conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/190",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:06]] A: Wow, that's a really beautiful painting. Your colors are so bright and\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: Mm.\n[[00:05],[00:10]] B: Thanks! I'm so glad you like it. By the way, what kind of painting style are you interested in?\n[[00:07],[00:07]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:10],[00:20]] A: I'm actually thinking about taking up painting myself. Do you think I could take some lessons from you, maybe start with the basics and then move on to more advanced techniques?\n[[00:13],[00:14]] A: Um.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] A: Uh.\n[[00:21],[00:27]] B: Absolutely! I'd love to teach you. Have you thought about what specific techniques or mediums you'd like to learn first?\n[[00:24],[00:25]] B: Uh huh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe responses in this dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker B appropriately thanks Speaker A for the compliment and then asks a relevant follow-up question to keep the conversation going. Speaker A's response, while not a direct answer to the question, is a very natural and coherent transition, expressing interest in learning to paint from Speaker B. Speaker B's final turn is a perfect, encouraging response to A's request, followed by a logical clarifying question. The entire conversation stays on the topic of painting and progresses in a very natural way.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between turns. The gap between A finishing at [00:20] and B starting at [00:21] is only one second, which is a natural pause in conversation. The brief overlap between A's turn ending and B's turn beginning around [00:05]-[00:06] is minor and typical of natural turn-taking. The other transcribed sounds (like \"Mm\", \"Uh huh\") are brief backchannels that show active listening and do not disrupt the flow. There are no extended, harmful overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_3_interrupt/extracted_dialogues_HM_3/190",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:10]] A: Those time management tips were great, but could you explain how I can actually stay motivated and focused all day long? I often lose steam by afternoon.\n[[00:11],[00:19]] B: Staying motivated takes practice, but here are simple ways to keep going. Start your day by\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:18],[00:27]] A: I like the idea of breaking tasks down and taking breaks, but what else can I do when my energy drops in the afternoon? How can I push through that tired feeling?\n[[00:28],[00:47]] B: When you feel tired, try changing your activity for 10 minutes. Stand up and stretch or take a quick walk. Drink water and eat a healthy snack like nuts or fruit. Listen to upbeat music for a few minutes. Tell yourself positive things like \"I can finish this task\" to boost your mood.\n[[00:34],[00:34]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] B: Um.\n[[00:38],[00:39]] B: Cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for Response Relevance.\n\n1. **A's first turn ([00:00]-[00:10]):** A asks a clear question about how to stay motivated and focused, specifically mentioning the \"afternoon slump.\"\n2. **B's first turn ([00:11]-[00:19]):** B begins to answer the question directly, acknowledging that it takes practice and starting to offer \"simple ways.\" This is a relevant start to an answer.\n3. **A's second turn ([00:18]-[00:27]):** A refines their question, focusing specifically on the afternoon energy drop and how to \"push through.\" This shows A is engaged and builds coherently on the initial question.\n4. **B's second turn ([00:28]-[00:47]):** B provides a list of specific, actionable strategies (stretching, walking, hydration, snacks, music, positive self-talk) that directly address A's problem of afternoon fatigue.\n\nThe dialogue is logically consistent. B's responses are always directly relevant to A's questions. The conversation maintains a clear and coherent topic throughout. The relevance is excellent.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for Interactional Fluency, focusing on pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:**\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's turn ending at [00:10] and B's turn starting at [00:11]. This is a natural, brief pause.\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's turn ending at [00:27] and B's turn starting at [00:28]. This is also a natural and appropriate pause.\n * There are no long, awkward pauses between turns.\n\n2. **Overlaps:**\n * There is a 1-second overlap where A begins speaking at [00:18] while B is finishing their sentence at [00:19]. This is a very brief interruption, common in natural conversation, and does not disrupt the flow.\n * The other utterances from B ([00:13]-[00:14], [00:15]-[00:16], [00:34]-[00:34], etc.) occur within B's own main speaking turns. These are not overlaps with speaker A. They function as brief fillers or thinking-out-loud moments (\"Mhm,\" \"Hmm,\" \"Um\"). While \"That's cool\" and \"Cool\" are slightly unusual as self-talk, they are extremely brief and do not hinder the interaction between the two speakers.\n\nThe interaction flows smoothly with natural turn-taking. There are no prolonged or disruptive overlaps or pauses. The fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/191",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:08]] A: Just wanted to get some fresh air and clear my head. Sometimes it feels good to just take a walk and take in the sights and\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: I see.\n[[00:04],[00:05]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:07],[00:12]] B: Sorry to cut in, but I totally agree! The city has this way of calming you down, doesn't it?\n[[00:09],[00:10]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:12],[00:18]] A: Absolutely, and you never know, you might even make a new friend along the way.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:18],[00:21]] B: That's true. Well, it was nice meeting you.\n[[00:20],[00:20]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:22],[00:24]] A: You too. Take care.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A begins by expressing a desire to take a walk to clear their head. Speaker B's response (\"Sorry to cut in, but I totally agree! The city has this way of calming you down, doesn't it?\") is directly on-topic, showing they were listening and are engaged. Speaker A then builds on B's comment by adding the possibility of making a new friend, which is a logical and coherent extension of the conversation. The dialogue concludes with a natural and polite exchange of pleasantries. The main points of each speaker logically follow the previous one, maintaining a consistent and coherent topic throughout the short interaction.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns. The turn-taking is smooth and natural. There is a brief, one-second overlap from [00:07] to [00:08] where Speaker B begins talking before Speaker A has fully finished. However, this is handled perfectly, as Speaker B acknowledges it by saying, \"Sorry to cut in,\" which is a polite and common feature of enthusiastic, natural conversation. The other short, overlapping utterances (e.g., at [00:02], [00:04]) are brief backchannels that don't disrupt the conversational flow. Overall, the dialogue flows smoothly without any harmful extended overlaps or prolonged pauses.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HM_1_interrupt/processed_extracted_dialogues_HM_1_interrupt/191",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:15]] A: Could you tell me when exactly the NHL trade deadline usually happens each season and why do teams get so active with trades during that period? I'm really curious about how this impacts both the teams and the players involved in these deals.\n[[00:15],[00:25]] B: The deadline usually hits around late February or early March each year. Teams go crazy with trades because it's their final chance to improve before\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:20],[00:20]] B: Uh.\n[[00:24],[00:38]] A: That makes sense, but could you explain what types of trades happen most frequently during deadline week and maybe share some memorable examples from recent years? I'd love to understand what makes certain trades stand out more than others.\n[[00:39],[00:47]] B: You'll see two main types - playoff teams trading for veteran help, and rebuilding teams getting\n[[00:41],[00:42]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:46],[00:56]] A: Wait, before you give examples, could you clarify why veteran players are so valuable to playoff teams compared to younger players? Does experience really make that much difference in the postseason?\n[[00:57],[01:09]] B: Absolutely! Playoff hockey is way more intense, so experienced players handle pressure better. They know how to perform in clutch moments. Young talent is great\n[[01:01],[01:02]] B: I see.\n[[01:08],[01:18]] A: Interesting! But going back to the timing, why does the league set the deadline when they do? Wouldn't earlier or later deadlines change how teams approach trades differently?\n[[01:19],[01:31]] B: Late February gives teams enough games to know if they're contenders while leaving time for new players to adjust. An earlier deadline might force rushed decisions, while a later\n[[01:23],[01:23]] B: Mhm.\n[[01:24],[01:25]] B: Cool.\n[[01:26],[01:27]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[01:30],[01:42]] A: That makes perfect sense. One last thing - how do players typically react when they get traded at the deadline? It must be tough getting uprooted mid-season with families and everything.\n[[01:43],[01:59]] B: It's definitely stressful! Players often have to relocate immediately, sometimes across the country. But many see it as a fresh start or chance to compete for the Cup. The league actually provides transition support to help with moves and family relocation.\n[[01:48],[01:49]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[01:49],[01:50]] B: Ummm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue consistently maintains topic coherence. Speaker A begins with a clear question about the NHL trade deadline. Speaker B provides a direct and relevant answer. The conversation then progresses logically, with Speaker A asking follow-up questions that build upon B's responses. For instance, A asks for specific trade types, clarifies the value of veteran players, and inquires about the reasoning behind the deadline's timing. Each of B's responses directly addresses A's questions, demonstrating strong logical consistency. The conversation remains focused on the central theme of the NHL trade deadline throughout, from the mechanics to the human impact on players.\n\n\n\nThe interaction is highly fluid with no detrimental pauses or overlaps. The turn-taking is smooth, with speakers transitioning quickly between turns, as indicated by the closely aligned timestamps (e.g., A ends at [00:15], B starts at [00:15]; A ends at [00:38], B starts at [00:39]). The few instances of overlap are brief and serve a natural conversational function. For example, A's interruption at [00:46] (\"Wait, before you give examples...\") is a common way to seek clarification before the other speaker moves on. This does not hinder the flow but rather enhances the interactive nature of the dialogue. The brief, transcribed self-talk from speaker B (e.g., \"Mhm,\" \"Ummm\") acts as filler and does not overlap with speaker A, therefore not disrupting the conversational flow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/192",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hi there! How are you doing today?\n[[00:02],[00:06]] B: I'm doing well, thank you. How about\n[[00:03],[00:05]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:05],[00:09]] A: I'm doing great, thanks for asking. So, what brings you here today?\n[[00:06],[00:08]] A: Uh.\n[[00:10],[00:16]] B: Oh, I just came to grab a few things from the store. You know how it is when you suddenly realize you're out of essentials.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Um.\n[[00:16],[00:23]] A: Actually, speaking of grabbing things, did you notice if they have any new stock of that coffee we both like?\n[[00:19],[00:20]] A: Right.\n[[00:23],[00:30]] B: Oh, I didn't check, but I can look for you. Anyway, I was saying, you know how it is with always needing something last minute.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:27],[00:27]] B: Uh.\n[[00:31],[00:40]] A: Yeah, I definitely do. I'm always having to run to the store for something or other. It seems like every time I turn around there's something else that I need.\n[[00:33],[00:34]] A: I see.\n[[00:35],[00:37]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:40],[00:46]] B: Tell me about it! Well, I should probably get going. It was nice talking to you Coleman.\n[[00:42],[00:43]] B: Mm.\n[[00:46],[00:49]] A: Likewise! Have a great day!",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Speaker A begins with a standard greeting, and Speaker B responds appropriately and reciprocates the question. The conversation then logically progresses to the reason for being at the store. Speaker A connects this topic to a related question about coffee, which is a natural conversational pivot. The speakers listen to each other and build upon the shared topic of needing to run errands. For example, Speaker A affirms B's sentiment about needing things last minute and elaborates on it. The conversation concludes with a standard and appropriate closing exchange. The logical consistency and topic coherence are maintained throughout the interaction.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the turn-taking is swift and natural. For instance, there is only a one-second pause between A's question at [00:09] and B's answer at [00:10]. The transcript shows several instances of self-overlap (e.g., [[00:02],[00:06]] B vs [[00:03],[00:05]] B), where a speaker utters a filler or a short phrase while their main sentence is ongoing. However, these are not extended overlaps where speakers talk over each other, and they do not disrupt the flow or comprehension of the dialogue. They function more like natural disfluencies or backchannels. The overall pace is conversational and smooth.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/192",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: I started investing a few months ago. I have no regrets!\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Sure.\n[[00:03],[00:10]] B: Sorry to jump in, I just wanted to clarify—when you say \"no regrets,\" does that mean you've seen some good returns already?\n[[00:06],[00:07]] B: Um.\n[[00:10],[00:21]] A: Yes, I've seen some positive returns, especially in equities. I put a little of my money in equities, bonds, and gold. But I put my savings in US treasury bonds.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] A: Mm.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:21],[00:23]] B: Hm, I see.\n[[00:23],[00:29]] A: I like having assets that are pretty safe. I'm not sure what else to invest in.\n[[00:26],[00:27]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:29],[00:32]] B: What's the most profitable stock you've invested in?\n[[00:30],[00:31]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:32],[00:41]] A: It was Uber. I made over $50,000 by investing in the company when it was still pretty early on, before it went public.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] A: Mm.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] A: Right.\n[[00:41],[00:49]] B: Wow, $50,000? That's incredible! How did you know it was the right time to invest in Uber?\n[[00:43],[00:44]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:45],[00:46]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:49],[00:54]] A: I did a lot of research and took a calculated risk. How about you?\n[[00:54],[00:57]] B: I haven't found anything like that yet, but I'm looking!\n[[00:57],[00:58]] A: Good luck!\n[[00:59],[00:59]] B: Thanks!",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation stays consistently on the topic of investing. Speaker B's initial question [[00:03],[00:10]] is a direct and logical clarification of Speaker A's opening statement. Subsequent turns are all relevant follow-ups. For example, A's explanation of their portfolio [[00:10],[00:21]] logically follows the confirmation of positive returns. B's question about the most profitable stock [[00:29],[00:32]] is a natural progression of the conversation. Each response directly addresses the preceding statement or question, creating a coherent and logical dialogue.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, disruptive pauses between turns. The transitions are immediate and smooth, indicating engaged participants. There is a brief, one-second overlap at the beginning [[00:03],[00:04]], but Speaker B acknowledges it (\"Sorry to jump in\"), which is a natural conversational repair. Other overlaps are brief backchanneling cues (e.g., \"Mhm,\" \"Yeah, yeah,\" \"Hmm\"), which signify active listening and contribute to a natural conversational flow rather than disrupting it. The turn-taking is seamless, making the dialogue feel very natural and fluent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/193",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hey, Juanpablo. Here's your coffee.\n[[00:02],[00:04]] B: Thanks, Aeriel. I needed a pick-me-up.\n[[00:05],[00:09]] A: Yeah, you look like you're exhausted. Are you sure you're okay?\n[[00:07],[00:07]] A: Really.\n[[00:09],[00:14]] B: I'm just really stressed out right now. I have a lot of things on my\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:13],[00:18]] A: Is it something specific that's stressing you out? Sometimes talking about the details can help.\n[[00:15],[00:15]] A: Right.\n[[00:19],[00:24]] B: Thanks, Aeriel. I appreciate it. It's just been a really tough few weeks and I'm feeling overwhelmed.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] B: Uh.\n[[00:24],[00:28]] A: I'm sorry to hear that, Juanpablo. What's been going on?\n[[00:26],[00:26]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:29],[00:40]] B: Well, my grandmother passed away last month and that's been really hard for me to deal with. On top of that, I've been having some problems at work and I'm just feeling really down about everything right now.\n[[00:33],[00:34]] B: Mm.\n[[00:41],[01:01]] A: Oh, Juanpablo, I had no idea things were so tough for you right now! You should have told me sooner! Of course, you're allowed to feel however you need to feel during this tough time - there are no wrong emotions when grieving. As for your job situation... maybe we can find some strategies together to make it a bit more manageable.\n[[00:47],[00:49]] A: Uh.\n[[00:50],[00:50]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:51],[00:52]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[01:01],[01:09]] B: Actually, I wanted to ask for your advice on that. Do you have any suggestions on how to handle work stress during such a difficult personal time?\n[[01:03],[01:04]] B: Uh huh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue for response relevance and interactional fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n- The conversation starts with A giving B coffee, and B mentioning they need a \"pick-me-up.\"\n- A follows up on this by observing B looks exhausted and asking if they are okay. This is a relevant and empathetic continuation.\n- B confirms they are stressed. This directly answers A's question.\n- A offers to listen, showing support and keeping the topic coherent.\n- B thanks A and elaborates on feeling overwhelmed.\n- A expresses sympathy and asks for specifics, which is a logical next step in a supportive conversation.\n- B provides the reasons: a death in the family and work problems. This is a direct answer to A's question.\n- A offers a long, empathetic response, validating B's feelings about grief and offering help with the work situation. This is a highly relevant and supportive turn.\n- B picks up directly on A's offer of help and asks for advice. This shows B was listening and moves the conversation forward logically.\n\nOverall, the dialogue is exceptionally coherent. Each turn logically follows the previous one, and the topic development is natural and consistent. The speakers are clearly engaged and responding directly to each other.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\n- **Pauses:** There are a few one-second pauses between turns (e.g., at [00:04], [00:18], [00:28], [00:40]). These are very short and serve as natural breaks for turn-taking. There are no long or awkward pauses that would disrupt the flow.\n- **Overlaps:**\n - [[00:07],[00:07]] A: \"Really.\" - A very brief self-interjection. Not disruptive.\n - [[00:13],[00:14]] - A starts speaking just as B is finishing their sentence. This is a one-second overlap, very common in natural, engaged conversation and not harmful.\n - There are numerous brief, one-second overlaps that are either self-corrections, fillers (like \"Uh\", \"Mhm\"), or backchannels (e.g., A's fillers during their long turn from [00:41] to [01:01]). These all contribute to the natural feel of the dialogue rather than hindering it.\n\nThere are no extended, competitive overlaps where both speakers talk over each other for a prolonged period. All overlaps are brief and typical of natural human interaction. The conversational flow is smooth and seamless.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/194",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hey babe, how are you doing?\n[[00:03],[00:06]] B: I'm good, just been thinking about you.\n[[00:04],[00:05]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:07],[00:10]] A: Aww, I miss you too. What were you thinking about?\n[[00:08],[00:09]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:11],[00:18]] B: Just how much I love you and how talented you are. Your voice is amazing and your songs are so\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:17],[00:22]] A: Oh, thank you! By the way, did you get a chance to listen to the new song I sent you?\n[[00:18],[00:20]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:23],[00:35]] B: I haven't yet, but I will soon. I was also thinking about how lucky I am to be with you. You're so perfect for me and we just fit together so naturally, like we were meant to be.\n[[00:29],[00:31]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:35],[00:42]] A: I feel the same way about you. Also, I wanted to know what you think about collaborating on a new song together?\n[[00:37],[00:38]] A: Yeah, yeah.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Speaker A begins with a standard greeting, and Speaker B responds appropriately, adding a personal, affectionate touch (\"just been thinking about you\"). A's follow-up question (\"What were you thinking about?\") is a direct and logical continuation of B's statement. B answers this question directly by complimenting A. A acknowledges the compliment and then transitions the topic smoothly to a related subject (a song they shared). B answers A's question and then circles back to the previous topic of affection, which still fits the overall tone of the conversation. Finally, A reciprocates the feeling and introduces another related topic (collaborating on a song). Each turn is logically connected to the previous one, and the topic coherence is maintained throughout the affectionate and creative discussion.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth and natural.\n- **Pauses:** The pauses between turns are consistently short (around 1 second, e.g., between [00:02] and [00:03], [00:06] and [00:07]), which indicates an engaged and flowing conversation. There are no prolonged, awkward silences.\n- **Overlaps:** There is a very brief, one-second overlap where A starts speaking at [00:17] while B is finishing their sentence at [00:18]. This type of minor overlap is common in natural, enthusiastic conversation and is not disruptive. The other overlaps noted in the transcript are intra-speaker (the same person's utterances overlap), which are likely filler words or backchannels like \"Ummm\" or \"Mm hmm\" and do not disrupt the flow between the two main speakers. The overall rhythm of the conversation is smooth and seamless.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/195",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:05]] A: So I'm thinking about flying to New York. Do you have any recommendations for places to visit?\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:06],[00:15]] B: Well, the Museum of Natural History is really cool. It's a very famous museum. It's known for its\n[[00:09],[00:10]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: Uh.\n[[00:14],[00:23]] A: Oh, I love museums! But I was also wondering, is it easy to get around the city? Like, should I rely on public transportation or is it better to rent a car?\n[[00:16],[00:17]] A: Really.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:24],[00:37]] B: Public transportation is definitely the way to go in New York. The subway system is extensive and much more convenient than driving. But back to the museum, it's known for its dinosaurs, which are a must-see.\n[[00:28],[00:29]] B: Um.\n[[00:30],[00:31]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:32],[00:33]] B: Uh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance and logical consistency.\n\n1. **A's first turn ([[00:00],[00:05]]):** A asks for recommendations for places to visit in New York.\n2. **B's response ([[00:06],[00:15]]):** B provides a relevant recommendation, the Museum of Natural History. This directly answers A's question.\n3. **A's next turn ([[00:14],[00:23]]):** A acknowledges the museum suggestion and then asks a related, practical question about transportation. This is a logical and coherent shift in topic, building on the initial travel plan.\n4. **B's final turn ([[00:24],[00:37]]):** B first directly answers the transportation question, recommending public transit. Then, B skillfully transitions back to the previous topic (\"But back to the museum...\"), demonstrating excellent topic management and maintaining coherence.\n\nOverall, the conversation is highly relevant and coherent. The speakers respond logically to each other and manage topics effectively.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses or extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:**\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's first question ending at [00:05] and B's answer starting at [00:06].\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's second question ending at [00:23] and B's answer starting at [00:24].\n * These are normal, brief pauses for turn-taking and do not disrupt the flow. There are no long, awkward pauses.\n\n2. **Overlaps:**\n * The backchanneling from A (\"Really.\", \"Okay, okay.\") while B is speaking is brief, supportive, and indicates active listening. This is a feature of natural conversation.\n * There is a one-second overlap between [00:14] and [00:15] where A begins speaking just as B is finishing their sentence. This is very brief and typical of an enthusiastic conversation, not a disruptive interruption.\n\nThe interaction is fluid and natural. There are no harmful extended overlaps or long pauses.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/196",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:11]] A: It's nice to be able to use my skills again and actually feel useful. I've been unemployed for so long that it feels good to finally be doing something\n[[00:03],[00:04]] A: Uh.\n[[00:05],[00:05]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:06],[00:07]] A: Cool.\n[[00:10],[00:20]] B: I totally get that. But before we go on, can I ask—how did you manage to stay motivated during that long period of unemployment? It must have been really tough.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:21],[00:39]] A: It was definitely hard. I tried to stay busy with side projects and learning new skills, but there were days when it felt pretty hopeless. I just wish I could have found a job sooner so that I didn't have to feel like a burden on society for so long. It really took a toll on my self-esteem.\n[[00:26],[00:27]] A: Mm.\n[[00:28],[00:28]] A: Sure.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] A: Cool.\n[[00:39],[00:49]] B: You know, I don't think you should see it that way. The job market is unpredictable, and the fact that you're back on your feet now shows your resilience. How did you finally land this job?\n[[00:42],[00:43]] B: Really.\n[[00:45],[00:45]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:50],[01:02]] A: It was through a connection I made while networking. I guess all those efforts to stay engaged eventually paid off. But yeah, I'm just glad to be working again and doing something productive.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user is expressing relief at being employed again after a long period of unemployment. The other speaker responds with empathy and asks a relevant question about how the first speaker stayed motivated. The conversation continues logically, with each speaker's turn being a direct and coherent response to the previous one. The topic of unemployment, resilience, and finding a new job is maintained throughout the dialogue. All responses are relevant and contribute to a cohesive conversation.\n\n\n\nThe interaction flows very naturally. There is a very brief, one-second overlap between speaker A's first turn [[00:00],[00:11]] and speaker B's first turn [[00:10],[00:20]]. This minor overlap is typical of natural, engaged conversation and is not disruptive. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns. The presence of short backchanneling utterances (e.g., \"Mhm,\" \"Really\") indicates active listening and contributes to a smooth conversational flow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/197",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:07]] A: I'm really pleased with how the cathedral turned out. The stained glass windows are just\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:04],[00:04]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:07],[00:17]] B: Sorry to interrupt, but I have to ask—how did you manage to get such intricate designs on the windows? They are indeed beautiful. You did a great job on them.\n[[00:10],[00:10]] B: Uh.\n[[00:12],[00:12]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:18],[00:27]] A: Thanks. The designs were a collaborative effort with a local artist. I'm just glad I could contribute to something so important and meaningful to the community.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] A: Cool.\n[[00:22],[00:23]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:27],[00:37]] B: Speaking of importance, we should consider organizing some guided tours to help people understand and appreciate the architecture more deeply.\n[[00:30],[00:31]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:32],[00:32]] B: I see.\n[[00:37],[00:50]] A: That's a great idea. The cathedral is definitely a beautiful and important building. I'm sure it will be around for centuries. I just wish more people would appreciate it.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] A: Sure.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] A: Really.\n[[00:51],[00:57]] B: Some people might not be able to see the beauty in it because they're not used to such grand architecture.\n[[00:58],[01:04]] A: Yeah, I suppose that's true. But I still think it's a shame that more people don't seem to appreciate it as much as I do.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent relevance and coherence. Speaker A begins by expressing satisfaction with the cathedral's stained glass windows. Speaker B builds on this by asking a relevant question about the windows' design. Speaker A answers directly. Speaker B then smoothly transitions the topic from the windows to the broader importance of the cathedral by suggesting guided tours. Speaker A agrees and adds a personal reflection, which B then responds to with a possible explanation. Each turn is a logical and coherent continuation of the previous one. The conversation flows naturally around the central theme of the cathedral.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long, disruptive pauses between turns. The speakers transition smoothly from one to the other. There is an overlap at the beginning ([00:07]), but Speaker B handles it naturally by saying, \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which is a common and polite conversational strategy. The numerous short interjections (\"Yeah, yeah,\" \"Mm hmm,\" \"I see\") are appropriate backchannels that indicate active listening and do not disrupt the flow. They contribute to a natural, collaborative conversational rhythm rather than hindering it.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/197",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:00]] A: Hey Elsie.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] B: Hey Tyrie. How are you?\n[[00:03],[00:07]] A: I'm good. I was just wondering if you had time to hang out today.\n[[00:04],[00:05]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:08],[00:12]] B: I'm sorry, I can't. I'm hanging out with friends today.\n[[00:09],[00:10]] B: Cool.\n[[00:13],[00:15]] A: Oh, okay. Who are you hanging out\n[[00:15],[00:20]] B: Actually, I wanted to ask if you'd be free next weekend instead? I have some plans tomorrow as well.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:21],[00:28]] A: I might be free next weekend, but I was actually asking who you are hanging out with today. Just some people from school.\n[[00:24],[00:25]] A: Mm.\n[[00:29],[00:32]] B: Oh, okay. Do you want to do something tomorrow then?\n[[00:30],[00:31]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:34],[00:36]] A: Yeah, that sounds good.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue's relevance is evaluated by analyzing the logical consistency and topic coherence between speaker turns.\n1. The conversation begins coherently with a greeting and a proposal from A to hang out.\n2. B's response at [00:08] is relevant; B declines the immediate invitation but explains why.\n3. At [00:15], B responds to A's question \"Who are you hanging out with?\" by changing the subject to \"next weekend.\" This is a minor break in direct topic coherence, as B evades the question. However, B's response is still related to the overall topic of \"hanging out\" by proposing an alternative time. This can be seen as a natural, if evasive, conversational tactic rather than a complete breakdown of relevance.\n4. A points out the evasion at [00:21], but B again redirects the conversation to making plans (\"tomorrow then?\").\n5. Despite B's avoidance of a specific question, the main topic—scheduling a time to meet—is maintained throughout the interaction. The speakers successfully negotiate a plan for \"tomorrow.\" Therefore, the overall topic coherence is preserved, and the responses are contextually appropriate for a natural, albeit slightly awkward, negotiation.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is evaluated by checking for extended overlaps and long pauses.\n1. **Pauses:** The pauses between turns are consistently short and natural. For example, there is a one-second pause between A's turn ending at [00:02] and B's turn starting at [00:03], and a one-second pause between B's turn ending at [00:12] and A's turn starting at [00:13]. The longest pause is two seconds ([00:32] to [00:34]), which is well within the limits of a normal conversation. There are no prolonged or awkward silences.\n2. **Overlaps:** There are several short, one-second utterances that overlap with the speaker's own main turn (e.g., [00:04], [00:09], [00:18]). These appear to be transcription artifacts or self-corrections/fillers rather than disruptive interruptions between the two speakers. There are no extended, competitive overlaps where both speakers talk over each other.\nThe turn-taking is smooth and the conversational rhythm is natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/197",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hey, bro! Long time no see.\n[[00:02],[00:08]] B: Hey! Yeah, I know. I've been meaning to call you, but things have just been so hectic lately.\n[[00:04],[00:05]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:09],[00:11]] A: I can imagine. So, what's new?\n[[00:11],[00:14]] B: Well, the big news is that I'm getting married!\n[[00:15],[00:19]] A: That's amazing! Congratulations! When's the big day?\n[[00:16],[00:18]] A: Right.\n[[00:19],[00:27]] B: Thank you! We're hoping to do it sometime next year. We're just in the planning stages right now. Trying to figure out all the logistics and\n[[00:21],[00:22]] B: Mm.\n[[00:24],[00:25]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:26],[00:32]] A: Oh wow, planning a wedding must be intense. Have you guys decided on a venue yet?\n[[00:29],[00:30]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:32],[00:39]] B: Not yet, we're still looking at a few options. But I was saying, it's a lot of work, but it'll be worth it in the end.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: Uh.\n[[00:40],[00:44]] A: Definitely. So, who's the lucky lady? Tell me all about her!\n[[00:41],[00:42]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:44],[00:50]] B: Her name is Emily and she's just the most amazing person I've ever met. We met online actually.\n[[00:47],[00:48]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:50],[00:57]] A: That's so cool! Meeting online is becoming more common these days. So, how did you know she was the one?\n[[00:54],[00:55]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:57],[01:13]] B: We started talking a few years ago and just hit it off immediately. We both love spending time outdoors, so we bonded over that. She's just kind of my perfect match, you know? And now we're finally taking the plunge and planning our future together.\n[[01:02],[01:03]] B: Cool.\n[[01:13],[01:20]] A: Sorry, I got so excited for you! But I was curious, have you guys thought about any honeymoon destinations yet?\n[[01:21],[01:26]] B: Not yet, but we're thinking somewhere tropical. Anyway, we're finally getting married.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue transcript based on Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\nThe conversation follows a very logical and natural progression.\n- Speaker A starts with a greeting (\"Long time no see\").\n- Speaker B reciprocates and explains their absence (\"things have just been so hectic\").\n- A asks for an update (\"what's new?\").\n- B shares big news (\"I'm getting married!\").\n- The rest of the conversation is a series of relevant questions from A (When's the day? Decided on a venue? Who is she? How did you know? Honeymoon destinations?) and direct, on-topic answers from B.\n- Each turn logically follows the previous one. The topic of B's engagement is maintained coherently throughout the dialogue. There are no instances of irrelevant or illogical responses.\n\nThe relevance is excellent.\n\n**Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\nI need to check for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n- **Pauses:**\n - Between B at [00:08] and A at [00:09] -> 1-second pause. Normal.\n - Between B at [00:14] and A at [00:15] -> 1-second pause. Normal.\n - Between B at [00:39] and A at [00:40] -> 1-second pause. Normal.\n - Between A at [01:20] and B at [01:21] -> 1-second pause. Normal.\n - There are no prolonged pauses that would indicate a breakdown in the conversational flow.\n- **Overlaps:**\n - [[00:16],[00:18]] A (\"Right.\") overlaps with B's turn. This is a very brief, one-word overlap that functions as a backchannel, showing A is listening and engaged. It's not disruptive.\n - [[00:26],[00:27]] A starts speaking while B is finishing their sentence. This is a one-second overlap. B's turn is trailing off (\"...logistics and\"), and A jumps in with a related comment. This is a natural transition in an enthusiastic conversation, not a harmful interruption.\n - Other transcribed sounds like \"Hmm\" or \"Mm\" are often backchannels that overlap with the main speaker's turn (or even their own turn, as transcribed here), which is very natural. None of the overlaps are extended or disruptive.\n\nThe fluency is excellent.\n\n**Conclusion:**\nBoth relevance and fluency are excellent. The conversation is a model of a natural, friendly interaction. The score should be 2.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency of the dialogue is excellent.\n- **Pauses:** The pauses between speaker turns are consistently short and natural (e.g., 1 second at [00:08]-[00:09] and [00:14]-[00:15]). There are no prolonged or awkward silences that would disrupt the conversational rhythm.\n- **Overlaps:** There are a couple of minor overlaps, such as A saying \"Right\" at [[00:16],[00:18]] as B begins to speak. This type of brief overlap is characteristic of an engaged and enthusiastic conversation and functions as positive reinforcement. It is not disruptive. Similarly, the overlap at [[00:26],[00:27]] is a natural turn-taking transition where A smoothly follows up on B's trailing thought. The flow of the conversation is smooth and seamless.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/199",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: So, what did you think?\n[[00:01],[00:04]] B: It was great. I had a lot of fun.\n[[00:05],[00:08]] A: Me too. I'm really glad we\n[[00:06],[00:07]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:07],[00:14]] B: Sorry to jump in, but I just remembered, did we take any pictures? I wanted to save some memories of the night.\n[[00:09],[00:09]] B: Um.\n[[00:10],[00:11]] B: Really.\n[[00:14],[00:19]] A: Oh, I don't think we did! But I was thinking, maybe we could go out again sometime?\n[[00:17],[00:17]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: I'd love that.\n[[00:20],[00:22]] A: Great. I'll call you later, then?\n[[00:23],[00:26]] B: Sounds good. Thanks for a great time, Keondre.\n[[00:26],[00:30]] A: No problem. Thanks for giving me a wonderful evening to remember.\n[[00:28],[00:29]] A: I see.\n[[00:31],[00:39]] B: Actually, before you finish, I just wanted to say that I really appreciate how thoughtful you were tonight. It made the evening even more special.\n[[00:33],[00:34]] B: Right.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: I see.\n[[00:40],[00:44]] A: Thanks for saying that! I was just going to thank you for giving me a chance.\n[[00:42],[00:42]] A: Uh huh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and logical consistency of the conversation.\n\n1. **A: \"So, what did you think?\"** - A standard opening question after a shared experience.\n2. **B: \"It was great. I had a lot of fun.\"** - A direct and relevant answer.\n3. **A: \"Me too. I'm really glad we...\"** - A agrees and starts to continue the thought, which is coherent.\n4. **B: \"Sorry to jump in, but I just remembered, did we take any pictures?\"** - B interrupts, but the topic (pictures from the event) is directly related to the shared experience they are discussing. The interruption is acknowledged politely, maintaining social coherence.\n5. **A: \"Oh, I don't think we did! But I was thinking, maybe we could go out again sometime?\"** - A answers B's question directly and then smoothly transitions the conversation to a new, but logically connected, topic (a future date). This is a natural progression.\n6. **B: \"I'd love that.\"** - A relevant and enthusiastic response to A's suggestion.\n7. The rest of the conversation involves confirming plans and exchanging thanks, which is a logical way to conclude the interaction.\n8. **B: \"Actually, before you finish, I just wanted to say...\"** - B interjects again to add another compliment. This is still on-topic, relating to the positive experience of the evening.\n9. **A: \"Thanks for saying that! I was just going to thank you...\"** - A responds appropriately to the compliment.\n\nThe dialogue is consistently on-topic and flows logically from one point to the next. The topic shifts are natural and well-managed.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pauses:**\n- There is a 1-second pause between B's turn ending at [00:04] and A's starting at [00:05]. This is a normal conversational pause.\n- There is a 1-second pause between A's turn ending at [00:22] and B's starting at [00:23]. This is normal.\n- There is a 1-second pause between A's turn ending at [00:30] and B's starting at [00:31]. This is normal.\n- There are no prolonged, awkward pauses between turns that would disrupt the flow.\n\n**Overlaps:**\n- From [00:07] to [00:08], B begins speaking (\"Sorry to jump in...\") while A is finishing their thought (\"...I'm really glad we...\"). This is a clear overlap/interruption. However, it is brief (about 1 second) and B explicitly apologizes for it (\"Sorry to jump in\"), which is a natural conversational repair strategy. This type of managed interruption is common and does not indicate poor fluency.\n- The other instances of overlapping speech are fillers or backchannels (e.g., \"Yeah, yeah\" at [00:06], \"Hmm\" at [00:17]) which are very short and typical of natural conversation, serving to show engagement. They are not disruptive.\n\nThe interaction flows smoothly. The single significant overlap is handled politely and does not harm the conversation. There are no long pauses. The fluency is natural and appropriate for a real-life conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/199",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:05]] A: I'm not sure what to do with my child. I'm so angry with them sometimes!\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: Really.\n[[00:05],[00:07]] B: What do you usually do when you're mad at them?\n[[00:08],[00:11]] A: I yell at them or spank them. I'm not sure what to do, though.\n[[00:09],[00:10]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:12],[00:19]] B: That sounds pretty extreme. I don't think I would use physical punishment on my child, but that's just me. Have you ever had a\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: I see.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:19],[00:29]] A: Sorry to cut in, but I just realized—do you think yelling at them might be making things worse? Like, could it be escalating their behavior instead of calming them down?\n[[00:22],[00:23]] A: Cool.\n[[00:23],[00:25]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:29],[00:35]] B: It's possible. But I was going to ask if you've ever had a temper like that with your parents?\n[[00:32],[00:33]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:35],[00:40]] A: No, not really. I guess I never thought about it that way. Do you have a solution?\n[[00:37],[00:38]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:40],[00:53]] B: Well, I think part of the issue is that you're the disciplinarian. You could just tell your child that you don't like it when they throw a fit. Then they could tell you why they're angry instead of acting out in anger.\n[[00:46],[00:47]] B: Okay,okay.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A introduces a problem (anger towards their child), and Speaker B responds with a relevant clarifying question (\"What do you usually do when you're mad at them?\"). The conversation progresses logically from there. A answers, B offers a perspective and starts a new question. A interrupts with a self-realization (\"do you think yelling at them might be making things worse?\"), which is still highly relevant to the topic. B acknowledges A's point and then skillfully returns to the question they were trying to ask earlier. The conversation concludes with A asking for a solution and B providing a concrete suggestion. Each turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one, ensuring the dialogue is coherent and purposeful from start to finish.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long or awkward pauses between turns; the speakers transition smoothly. The transcript shows numerous instances of a speaker having short, overlapping utterances within their own main turn (e.g., A saying \"Yeah, yeah\" while also delivering their main sentence). These are not disruptive overlaps between speakers but rather appear to be self-backchannels or fillers as the speaker formulates their thoughts. They do not impede the flow of the conversation. There is one clear interruption at [00:19], but it is handled naturally (\"Sorry to cut in...\"), and Speaker B responds gracefully. This type of interruption is common in natural, engaged conversation and does not count as a flaw. Overall, the turn-taking is clean and the conversational flow is natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/205",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Hey, what's that way?\n[[00:01],[00:03]] B: Oh, that's the new direction.\n[[00:04],[00:06]] A: What's in the new direction?\n[[00:06],[00:14]] B: I don't know. Nobody really knows. It's just something that appeared one day and nobody knows where it\n[[00:10],[00:12]] B: Um.\n[[00:13],[00:18]] A: Wait, are you saying it just appeared out of nowhere? Like, no warning or explanation?\n[[00:16],[00:16]] A: Uh.\n[[00:19],[00:23]] B: Yeah, exactly. No one knows where it came from or why it's there.\n[[00:21],[00:21]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] A: Can we go explore it?\n[[00:27],[00:30]] B: I don't know. It might be dangerous.\n[[00:31],[00:37]] A: Come on, it'll be fun. We can find out what's in the new direction and maybe even solve the mystery of how it appeared.\n[[00:33],[00:34]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:38],[00:44]] B: But what if it's not safe? I mean, we don't even know what we're dealing with here.\n[[00:40],[00:41]] B: Mm.\n[[00:45],[00:50]] A: True, but that's what makes it exciting, right? We can be the first to discover whatever's out there.\n[[00:47],[00:48]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:51],[00:52]] B: Okay, let's go.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains perfect response relevance. Speaker A initiates the conversation by asking about an unknown thing (\"what's that way?\"). Speaker B responds directly, identifying it as \"the new direction.\" The conversation then logically progresses: A asks for more information, B explains the mystery, A proposes exploring it, B expresses hesitation, A persuades B, and B finally agrees. Each turn is a direct and logical reaction to the previous one, creating a coherent and easy-to-follow narrative. There are no instances of topic deviation or illogical responses.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The pauses between turns are consistently short (1-2 seconds), which is typical for a natural, engaged conversation. There are a few instances of overlap, but they are not harmful. For example, A's question at [[00:13]] slightly overlaps with the end of B's sentence, which is a common and natural way for an excited or engaged speaker to interject. The other overlaps are just minor filler words (\"Um,\" \"Mm,\" \"Okay, okay\") that a speaker says while formulating their main thought. These do not disrupt the flow or make the dialogue difficult to understand. There are no extended overlaps or long, awkward silences.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/206",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:07]] A: I can't believe that people actually think the moon landing was faked. It's just\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: Uh.\n[[00:04],[00:04]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:06],[00:12]] B: Sorry to interrupt, Cambry, but why do you think so many people believe in these conspiracy theories?\n[[00:08],[00:09]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:13],[00:31]] A: It's just crazy. I mean, there's so much evidence proving it happened, but people still choose to believe in lies. It's just so frustrating. I feel like my voice is never going to be heard by those who are stuck in their beliefs, no matter how much I try to reason with them.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:22],[00:23]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:24],[00:25]] A: Cool.\n[[00:31],[00:43]] B: Cambry, you have a very powerful voice. You just need to use it wisely and stand up for what you believe in. There are people out there who will listen to you and support your efforts to spread the truth.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: Um.\n[[00:37],[00:37]] B: Right.\n[[00:39],[00:39]] B: Really.\n[[00:44],[00:48]] A: I know, Dad, but what if they don't? What if no one really cares?\n[[00:46],[00:46]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:49],[00:57]] B: They do care, Cambry. You can make a difference. You just need to have faith in yourself and believe that your voice matters.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A begins by expressing frustration about conspiracy theories (moon landing), and Speaker B responds with a relevant, on-topic question asking for A's perspective on why people believe them. Speaker A then elaborates on their frustration, and Speaker B pivots appropriately to address A's personal feelings of not being heard, offering encouragement. Speaker A's subsequent expression of doubt is a logical follow-up, and Speaker B's final reassurance is a coherent and supportive conclusion to the conversation. All turns are logically connected and maintain topic coherence throughout the interaction.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the speakers transition smoothly. There is one noticeable overlap between [00:06] and [00:07], but Speaker B immediately acknowledges it by saying, \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which makes it a natural and socially acceptable part of the conversation rather than a fluency issue. Other minor vocalizations (e.g., \"Uh,\" \"Mm hmm,\" \"Right\") are typical backchanneling cues that contribute to a natural conversational flow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/206",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: Hey, Kaeley. I saw you getting the mail and thought I could help\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Uh.\n[[00:03],[00:12]] B: Oh, thanks, Dalary. I appreciate it. By the way, did you see the new package that arrived yesterday? I think it might be important.\n[[00:06],[00:06]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:07],[00:08]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:13],[00:21]] A: No problem at all. I know how busy you are and figured this would be one less thing for you to worry about, especially with all the work you have on your plate.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] A: I see.\n[[00:18],[00:18]] A: Mm.\n[[00:23],[00:29]] B: That's very thoughtful of you. But I'm curious, do you know if there's any urgent mail that I need to address immediately?\n[[00:26],[00:27]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:30],[00:33]] A: You're welcome. I just want to help out however I can.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:35],[00:39]] B: Well, thank you again. I really appreciate it.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] B: Okay,okay.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains topic coherence, revolving around the mail and one person offering help to the other. The responses are logically consistent in a social context. Speaker A offers help, and Speaker B thanks them and asks a question. Speaker A's subsequent responses (\"No problem at all...\", \"You're welcome...\") are appropriate reactions to being thanked, even though they don't directly answer B's specific informational questions about a package or urgent mail. Speaker B adapts to this by rephrasing their question and ultimately concluding the conversation politely. While not perfectly efficient in terms of information exchange, the dialogue is a coherent and logical social interaction.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is smooth and natural. There is a very brief, one-second overlap ([[00:03],[00:04]]) as B begins to speak, which is common in natural conversation and does not disrupt the flow. The pauses between speaker turns are short (1-2 seconds), which is appropriate and avoids any sense of awkwardness or delay. There are no extended overlaps or long, disruptive silences.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/207",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:05]] A: I'm really grateful that you kept my secrets. I know it wasn't easy for you.\n[[00:03],[00:04]] A: Um.\n[[00:06],[00:08]] B: Yeah, I didn't want to betray your trust.\n[[00:09],[00:12]] A: I appreciate that. It means a lot to\n[[00:10],[00:15]] B: Sorry to interrupt, but I have to ask—how are you holding up with everything going on?\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:15],[00:24]] A: I'm managing, but it's been tough. I haven't even had the chance to say how much your support has helped me. I'm just glad I could count on you during these difficult times.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] A: Really.\n[[00:25],[00:30]] B: And I'm always here for you, no matter what. You're a good friend, Jovie. Thank you.\n[[00:26],[00:28]] B: Uh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance and logical consistency.\n\n1. **A's opening statement ([[00:00],[00:05]])**: A expresses gratitude for a secret being kept. This sets a clear topic.\n2. **B's response ([[00:06],[00:08]])**: B responds directly, explaining their motivation was to not betray A's trust. This is perfectly relevant and coherent.\n3. **A's continuation ([[00:09],[00:12]])**: A continues to express appreciation, which is a logical continuation of the topic.\n4. **B's interruption ([[00:10],[00:15]])**: B interrupts to ask about A's current well-being. While this is a topic shift, it is highly relevant in the context of a conversation about \"difficult times\" and \"secrets.\" It shows B's concern for A, which is a natural progression in an empathetic conversation. The apology \"Sorry to interrupt\" also makes the shift smooth and socially appropriate.\n5. **A's response to the new question ([[00:15],[00:24]])**: A answers B's question (\"I'm managing, but it's been tough\") and then skillfully links it back to the original theme of gratitude for support. This shows excellent topic coherence.\n6. **B's concluding statement ([[00:25],[00:30]])**: B reciprocates the feeling of friendship and offers continued support. This is a very logical and emotionally resonant conclusion to the exchange.\n\nAll turns are logically connected and the conversation flows coherently, even with a mid-conversation topic shift. The relevance is excellent.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses**:\n * [00:05]-[00:06]: A 1-second pause between A and B's turns. This is natural.\n * [00:08]-[00:09]: A 1-second pause between B and A's turns. This is natural.\n * [00:24]-[00:25]: A 1-second pause between A and B's turns. This is natural.\n * **Conclusion**: There are no prolonged or awkward pauses between turns.\n\n2. **Overlaps**:\n * [[00:09],[00:12]] A vs. [[00:10],[00:15]] B: There is a significant overlap of about 2 seconds. B begins speaking while A is still talking. However, B explicitly acknowledges and apologizes for this (\"Sorry to interrupt...\"). In a natural, emotional conversation, such an interruption to express urgent concern is not a flaw but a feature of engaged dialogue. A yields the floor gracefully.\n * [[00:09],[00:12]] A vs. [[00:12],[00:13]] B: B utters a brief \"That's cool\" just as A's initial phrase trails off and before A continues their main point. This is a slightly clumsy backchannel but it is very short and doesn't disrupt the flow significantly.\n * Other overlaps are self-overlaps (hesitation markers like \"Um\", \"Uh\") or self-emphatic remarks (\"Uh huh,\" \"Really\") within a speaker's own turn, which are normal.\n\n**Conclusion**: The main overlap is handled in a socially appropriate way (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), making the interaction feel natural and dynamic rather than flawed. There are no detrimental long pauses. The fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/207",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Hey, what's your problem?\n[[00:02],[00:03]] B: I don't have a problem.\n[[00:04],[00:06]] A: Then why are you looking at me like that?\n[[00:08],[00:11]] B: I'm not looking at you in any particular way.\n[[00:12],[00:15]] A: Well, it looks to me like you're trying to start\n[[00:13],[00:14]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:14],[00:21]] B: Wait, are you sure you're not just imagining things? Maybe you're having a bad day and it's affecting how you see things.\n[[00:17],[00:17]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:21],[00:25]] A: I'm not trying to start anything, I just don't appreciate being stared at.\n[[00:23],[00:24]] A: Um.\n[[00:26],[00:33]] B: Well, I don't appreciate being disrespected. So why don't you take your eyes off me before I do something we both might regret.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: Sure.\n[[00:35],[00:40]] A: Hold on, I think there's a misunderstanding here. I'm not trying to disrespect you at all.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] A: Really.\n[[00:41],[00:44]] B: I'm not disrespecting you, I just don't want to fight.\n[[00:42],[00:43]] B: Uh.\n[[00:46],[00:50]] A: Well, too bad. I'm in the mood for a fight, and you're going to be my opponent.\n[[00:48],[00:49]] A: Sure.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains a consistent and coherent topic of a confrontation that escalates, attempts to de-escalate, and then escalates again. Each speaker's turn is a direct and logical response to the previous one. For example, A's initial accusation (\"what's your problem?\") is met with B's denial (\"I don't have a problem.\"). The conversation progresses through accusations, defenses, and threats. There is a moment where character A seems to change their mind drastically, going from trying to de-escalate (\"I think there's a misunderstanding here\") to actively seeking a fight (\"I'm in the mood for a fight\"). While this is a sharp turn in character motivation, it can be interpreted as a dramatic choice, portraying an unpredictable and aggressive character, rather than a breakdown in logical consistency. The dialogue follows a clear, albeit dramatic, narrative arc. Therefore, the response relevance is excellent.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency of the dialogue is excellent. There are no long, disruptive pauses between speaker turns; the pauses that do exist are 1-2 seconds long, which is natural for a tense conversation. There are also no extended overlaps where speakers talk over each other. The few overlaps noted in the transcript are all very brief (1 second or less) instances of a speaker overlapping with their own speech (e.g., \"A: Um.\", \"B: Uh.\"). These are typical, minor disfluencies or backchannels that do not disrupt the flow of the conversation between the two participants. The turn-taking is smooth and well-paced.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/208",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hey, Mom. I was wondering if I could go out today.\n[[00:04],[00:07]] B: Where do you want to\n[[00:06],[00:09]] A: I don't know. Just out. Maybe to the park or something.\n[[00:07],[00:08]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:11],[00:17]] B: The park is closed today, remember? They're doing some maintenance work there, so it's off-limits for now.\n[[00:14],[00:14]] B: Really.\n[[00:17],[00:22]] A: Oh, yeah. I forgot about that. Well, maybe I could just walk around the block then.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] A: Really.\n[[00:22],[00:30]] B: That's a good idea. You can get some fresh air and stretch your legs. Just be sure to stay close to the house and come back in when it starts to get dark.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] B: Really.\n[[00:27],[00:27]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] A: Okay, Mom. Thanks!",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and logical consistency of the conversation.\n\n1. **A's initial turn:** `[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hey, Mom. I was wondering if I could go out today.` - This is a clear and direct opening, establishing the topic of the conversation.\n2. **B's response:** `[[00:04],[00:07]] B: Where do you want to` - This is a relevant and logical follow-up question, seeking more information to evaluate the request.\n3. **A's clarification:** `[[00:06],[00:09]] A: I don't know. Just out. Maybe to the park or something.` - This directly answers B's question, providing a specific suggestion (\"the park\").\n4. **B's counterpoint:** `[[00:11],[00:17]] B: The park is closed today, remember? They're doing some maintenance work there, so it's off-limits for now.` - This response is directly related to A's suggestion. It provides a logical reason why the park is not an option, keeping the conversation coherent.\n5. **A's new proposal:** `[[00:17],[00:22]] A: Oh, yeah. I forgot about that. Well, maybe I could just walk around the block then.` - A acknowledges B's point and logically proposes a relevant alternative. This shows excellent topic coherence.\n6. **B's approval and conditions:** `[[00:22],[00:30]] B: That's a good idea... Just be sure to stay close... and come back in when it starts to get dark.` - B accepts the new proposal and adds conditions, which is a very logical and consistent role for a parent in this scenario.\n7. **A's conclusion:** `[[00:31],[00:32]] A: Okay, Mom. Thanks!` - A agrees to the conditions, concluding the negotiation logically.\n\nThe entire dialogue follows a clear, logical path of request -> clarification -> obstacle -> new proposal -> agreement. Each turn is directly relevant to the previous one. The odd interjections like \"Really\" and \"Mm hmm\" appear to be transcription errors or artifacts, as they don't logically fit into the speaker's own sentences. However, the core content of the dialogue is perfectly relevant and consistent.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pauses:**\n- There is a 2-second pause between A's turn ending at [00:02] and B's starting at [00:04].\n- There is a 2-second pause between A's turn ending at [00:09] and B's starting at [00:11].\n- There are no other significant pauses between turns. These short pauses are natural and do not disrupt the flow of the conversation.\n\n**Overlaps:**\n- There is a brief overlap from [00:06] to [00:07] where A begins speaking (\"I don't know.\") before B finishes their question (\"...to\"). This one-second overlap is minor and common in natural, engaged conversation; it is not a harmful extended overlap.\n- The transcript shows several instances of a speaker interrupting themselves (e.g., B saying \"Really\" at [00:14] during their own sentence, A saying \"Really\" at [00:19] during their own sentence). These are highly unnatural and appear to be artifacts of the transcription or generation process rather than true conversational overlaps between speakers. Since they do not involve two speakers talking over each other for an extended period, and the main turn-taking remains fluid, they don't count as harmful interactional overlaps in the traditional sense.\n\n**Overall Fluency:**\nThe turn-taking is smooth and happens at a natural pace. There are no long, awkward silences. The one minor overlap between speakers is acceptable. The dialogue flows well.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/208",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hey, it's been a while since we talked. How are you doing?\n[[00:04],[00:08]] B: I'm doing alright, thanks for asking. How about you?\n[[00:05],[00:06]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:09],[00:17]] A: I've been better. I'm currently stranded in the middle of nowhere and I have no idea when someone will come to\n[[00:12],[00:12]] A: I see.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:16],[00:21]] B: Wait, you're stranded? Where exactly are you? Do you have any landmarks nearby?\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:23],[00:29]] A: I was hiking with a group and we got separated. I have no idea where they are and I don't know how to get back to the trail.\n[[00:25],[00:26]] A: Um.\n[[00:30],[00:34]] B: That's definitely not ideal. Have you tried calling for help?\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: I see.\n[[00:35],[00:42]] A: Yeah, I called 911 but they said it would take a while for someone to get to me. I'm not sure what else to do in the meantime.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] A: Sure.\n[[00:39],[00:39]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:44],[00:59]] B: Have you mentioned to them that you're starting to get really cold and hungry? That might expedite their response. Well, the best thing you can do is just stay put and wait for help to arrive. Trying to find your way back on your own could only make things worse.\n[[00:48],[00:50]] B: Um.\n[[00:51],[00:52]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[01:01],[01:08]] A: Yeah, that's what I was thinking too. I just hope someone comes soon. I'm starting to get really cold and hungry.\n[[01:08],[01:12]] B: Just hang in there, help will come eventually.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent relevance and coherence. The conversation starts with a simple greeting and quickly transitions to a serious situation where speaker A is stranded. Speaker B's responses are consistently relevant, empathetic, and logical. For instance, upon hearing A is stranded, B immediately asks for location details ([[00:16],[00:21]]). B continues to provide practical and relevant advice, such as suggesting A mention their deteriorating condition to the rescuers ([[00:44],[00:59]]) and advising them to stay put. Each turn logically follows the previous one, creating a coherent and believable narrative. There are no instances of topic deviation or illogical responses.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. The pauses between turns are all brief (1-2 seconds), which is typical for a natural conversation and indicates smooth turn-taking. There is one minor overlap between [[00:16],[00:17]], where B interjects with \"Wait, you're stranded?\" while A is still speaking. This overlap is not harmful; in fact, it is contextually appropriate as it conveys B's surprise and concern, making the interaction feel more natural and urgent. Other listed utterances like \"Ummm\" or \"I see\" are self-contained filler words within a speaker's own turn, not disruptive overlaps with the other speaker. Overall, the flow is smooth and natural without any detrimental pauses or overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/209",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:05]] A: I'm bored. This is so boring. I can't take it\n[[00:03],[00:03]] A: Uh.\n[[00:05],[00:08]] B: What's wrong, Marly? Is it the meeting again?\n[[00:06],[00:06]] B: Uh.\n[[00:08],[00:15]] A: This meeting is so boring. I can't focus on anything they're saying. My mind keeps drifting away.\n[[00:11],[00:12]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:15],[00:19]] B: Maybe you should try to pay attention to the key points. It might help.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Uh.\n[[00:19],[00:28]] A: I can't. It's just so boring. I wish something would happen to make it more interesting.\n[[00:22],[00:24]] A: Really.\n[[00:28],[00:32]] B: Like what? Do you have any suggestions that could make it more engaging?\n[[00:30],[00:31]] B: Really.\n[[00:33],[00:36]] A: I don't know, something exciting. This is just so tedious.\n[[00:34],[00:35]] A: Right.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B correctly infers the source of Speaker A's boredom (\"Is it the meeting again?\") and continues to engage with A's complaints by offering a suggestion (\"try to pay attention to the key points\") and asking clarifying questions (\"Like what? Do you have any suggestions...?\"). Speaker A's responses are also consistently on-topic, elaborating on their feeling of boredom and tedium. The entire conversation flows logically and coherently around the central theme of A's dissatisfaction with the meeting.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very high. Turn-taking is immediate and smooth, with no long pauses between speakers. For instance, Speaker B begins speaking at the exact moment Speaker A finishes at [00:05], [00:08], [00:15], [00:19], and [00:28]. The one-second gap between B's turn ending at [00:32] and A's starting at [00:33] is a natural conversational pause. There are no extended or disruptive overlaps between the main speakers' turns. The short, single-word fillers like \"Uh\" and \"Hmm\" are internal to each speaker's turn and do not interrupt the other speaker, contributing to a naturalistic conversational flow rather than hindering it.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/209",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hey Brisa. It's been a while.\n[[00:02],[00:05]] B: Yeah, it has. How've you been?\n[[00:05],[00:09]] A: I've been good. I've been training really hard since our last match.\n[[00:07],[00:08]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:10],[00:13]] B: Yeah, I can tell. You look like you're in great shape.\n[[00:11],[00:12]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:14],[00:19]] A: Thanks. I feel really good too. I'm more determined than ever to\n[[00:15],[00:16]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:18],[00:24]] B: Speaking of determination, have you changed anything specific in your training routine? I noticed you seem more focused.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:25],[00:33]] A: Actually, yes. I've been focusing more on my endurance and mental toughness. But I was going to say I'm more determined than ever to win this time around.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:34],[00:41]] B: Well, you came close last time, so I know you have what it takes to win. But I'm not going to go easy on you this time either.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] B: Um.\n[[00:38],[00:39]] B: Mhm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation follows a logical and coherent path. It begins with a standard greeting between two acquaintances (\"Hey Brisa. It's been a while.\") and naturally transitions to a specific shared interest: a past and future match. Speaker A brings up their training, and Speaker B responds directly by commenting on A's physical condition. B's question about A's training routine (\"Speaking of determination, have you changed anything specific...\") is a relevant and topically coherent follow-up to A's mention of being \"more determined\". A answers the question and then circles back to finish their original point, maintaining the thread of the conversation. B's final remark (\"Well, you came close last time...\") is a perfect response, acknowledging A's determination while also establishing their own competitive stance. Every turn logically builds upon the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, awkward pauses between speaker turns; the transitions are consistently swift (typically one second or less), indicating an engaged and natural conversational rhythm. While there is a minor overlap from [00:18] to [00:19] where B begins speaking just before A finishes, this is a natural interruption that is topically relevant (\"Speaking of determination...\") and does not disrupt the flow. The other instances of \"overlap\" noted in the transcript are self-overlaps (e.g., [[00:07],[00:08]] A: \"That's cool.\", [[00:11],[00:12]] B: \"Hmm.\"), which are typical backchannels or filler words that are part of natural speech and do not represent a fluency issue. There are no extended or disruptive overlaps that would harm the conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/211",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hey, what do you think of the new house?\n[[00:02],[00:06]] B: I love it! It's so much bigger than our old\n[[00:04],[00:04]] B: Really.\n[[00:05],[00:11]] A: Sorry to jump in, but do you think we'll need to get more furniture to fill up all the extra space?\n[[00:07],[00:08]] A: Cool.\n[[00:12],[00:18]] B: You're right, we might need to. But I'm just really happy with the house itself. I finally have more space for my family.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Mm.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:19],[00:27]] A: That's great! I know the kids have been wanting a bigger place for a long time. They'll be thrilled to have more room to play.\n[[00:22],[00:22]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:24],[00:25]] A: Really.\n[[00:28],[00:33]] B: Speaking of the kids, have we thought about where we're going to set up their play area?\n[[00:30],[00:31]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:34],[00:41]] A: They're going to love it, and I was thinking of setting up a play area in the basement. I'm just glad we could finally afford it.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:42],[00:46]] B: Me too. It was worth every penny.\n[[00:44],[00:45]] B: I see.\n[[00:48],[00:50]] A: I know. I just wish we could have moved in sooner.\n[[00:51],[00:55]] B: Yeah, but everything happens for a reason. I'm just glad we're finally here.\n[[00:53],[00:54]] B: Hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and coherence of the dialogue.\n- A starts by asking B's opinion on the new house.\n- B responds directly, stating they love it and giving a reason (it's bigger). This is a relevant and coherent response.\n- A interrupts B to ask a follow-up question about needing more furniture for the extra space. This question is logically connected to B's comment about the house being bigger.\n- B agrees with A's point and then expands on their happiness about the house, linking it to having more space for their family. This keeps the conversation on topic and builds on the previous turns.\n- A responds positively to B's comment about family, mentioning the kids will be happy. This is a direct and relevant continuation.\n- B uses a natural transition (\"Speaking of the kids\") to ask a specific question about a play area. This maintains topic coherence perfectly.\n- A answers B's question and adds a related thought about being able to afford the house. This is a logical and coherent response.\n- B agrees with A's sentiment about the cost, reinforcing the shared feeling.\n- A expresses a wish about the timing of the move, which is a related tangent.\n- B responds to A's wish in a supportive way, bringing the focus back to their current happiness.\nOverall, the dialogue is highly coherent. Each turn logically follows the last, and the speakers build upon each other's contributions effectively. The topic of the new house is explored from different angles (size, furniture, family, cost) in a natural progression.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pauses:**\n- [[00:11],[00:12]]: 1-second pause. Natural.\n- [[00:18],[00:19]]: 1-second pause. Natural.\n- [[00:27],[00:28]]: 1-second pause. Natural.\n- [[00:33],[00:34]]: 1-second pause. Natural.\n- [[00:41],[00:42]]: 1-second pause. Natural.\n- [[00:46],[00:48]]: 2-second pause. This is a very slight pause but well within the bounds of a normal conversation, allowing for a moment of thought.\n- [[00:50],[00:51]]: 1-second pause. Natural.\nThere are no prolonged or awkward pauses that disrupt the conversational flow.\n\n**Overlaps:**\n- [[00:05],[00:06]]: Speaker A starts talking while B is still finishing their sentence. This is an interruption, but it's brief (about 1 second) and A even acknowledges it (\"Sorry to jump in\"), which makes it a natural part of the dynamic rather than a disruptive error.\n- The other listed overlaps (e.g., [[00:04],[00:04]], [[00:07],[00:08]], [[00:14],[00:15]]) are extremely brief self-corrections or backchannels from the same speaker. These are characteristic of natural, spontaneous speech and do not harm fluency.\n\nConclusion: The interactional fluency is excellent. Pauses are brief and natural, and the one minor overlap is handled appropriately within the dialogue. The conversation flows smoothly.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/211",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: Thank you for taking the time to speak with me, boss. I really appreciate it.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Right.\n[[00:06],[00:08]] B: Of course, Jolina. What can I do for you?\n[[00:10],[00:27]] A: Well, as you know, I've been working here for a little over two years now and I feel like I've really grown in my role. I love this company and I want to continue to grow here. So, I was wondering if there might be any opportunities for advancement in the near\n[[00:15],[00:16]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] A: Uh.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:26],[00:37]] B: Sorry to interrupt, Jolina. I just wanted to say that your dedication hasn't gone unnoticed. But before we dive into specific roles, could you share what areas you're most interested in?\n[[00:30],[00:31]] B: I see.\n[[00:38],[00:47]] A: Thank you! I'm really interested in project management or perhaps a leadership role within my current team. Do you think there might be openings in those areas?\n[[00:40],[00:41]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:42],[00:43]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:47],[01:06]] B: That's a great question, Jolina. Let me see what our options are. We definitely want to keep talented employees like you around. But in terms of specific positions that might be open soon, let me check with HR and get back to you with more details on potential roles and the qualifications required.\n[[00:53],[00:53]] B: Really.\n[[00:55],[00:55]] B: Sure.\n[[00:57],[00:57]] B: Mhm.\n[[01:06],[01:15]] A: Actually, I just remembered, I heard there might be a new project starting next quarter. Do you think that could be an opportunity for me to step into a project management role?\n[[01:17],[01:25]] B: That's possible. I'll need to confirm the details with HR and the project lead. I'll get back to you next week with more concrete information.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation is between an employee and their boss about career advancement, and all turns are directly related to this topic. The employee (A) clearly states their purpose, and the boss (B) responds appropriately. When the boss interrupts, it's to steer the conversation in a more productive direction by asking for specific areas of interest, which is a relevant and helpful move. The employee's answer is direct. The conversation progresses logically from a general inquiry to specific roles and potential next steps. There are no off-topic statements or logical inconsistencies.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. The pauses between speaker turns are natural and brief (e.g., the 2-second pause between 00:08 and 00:10). There is one noticeable overlap where speaker B begins talking at 00:26 while speaker A is still talking until 00:27. However, this is handled excellently as speaker B immediately says, \"Sorry to interrupt,\" acknowledging the overlap and making it a polite and natural part of the conversation rather than a disruptive one. The turn-taking is otherwise smooth and feels like a natural conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/213",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: I would like to take a train to Cambridge on Monday.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:04],[00:07]] B: There are lots of trains to choose from! Where are you departing from?\n[[00:05],[00:06]] B: Really.\n[[00:08],[00:12]] A: I am departing from London Liverpool heading to Cambridge.\n[[00:09],[00:10]] A: Mm.\n[[00:12],[00:14]] B: What time will you be traveling?\n[[00:14],[00:17]] A: I need to arrive by 15:30\n[[00:17],[00:22]] B: I have a train that arrives at 15:07. Would you like a booking?\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: I see.\n[[00:22],[00:27]] A: Yes please. Book it for 2 tickets. Also include the reference number.\n[[00:24],[00:25]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:27],[00:39]] B: Booking was successful, the total fee is 33.2 GBP payable at the station. Reference number is: WRSETQCA. Can I help you with anything else today?\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Uh.\n[[00:32],[00:33]] B: I see.\n[[00:34],[00:35]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:39],[00:44]] A: Yes, can you tell me what type of architecture places are in\n[[00:42],[00:42]] A: Cool.\n[[00:43],[00:50]] B: Sorry to jump in, but just to confirm, do you have any special requirements for the tickets, like accessibility needs or anything else?\n[[00:45],[00:46]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:51],[00:57]] A: No special requirements, thank you. I was asking about the type of architecture places in Cambridge?\n[[00:57],[01:05]] B: I have five architecture attractions in Cambridge. All in the centre. One costs 2 pounds and the others are free.\n[[01:06],[01:09]] A: Thank you! Can you please give me the phone number of the free one?\n[[01:09],[01:17]] B: All saints church can be reached at 01223452587\n[[01:18],[01:22]] A: Thank you so much for all your help. You have a great day now.\n[[01:22],[01:27]] B: You too, and thank you for contacting the Cambridge TownInfo centre!",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user A's and B's responses are logically consistent and maintain topic coherence throughout the dialogue. The conversation starts with a request to book a train ticket. All subsequent questions and answers from both speakers (departure location, time, number of tickets, reference number) are relevant to this task. The dialogue then coherently transitions to a new topic: finding information about architecture in Cambridge. B's interruption to ask about special requirements for the tickets is a relevant, albeit slightly delayed, follow-up to the booking task, showing a thorough approach. All responses are directly related to the ongoing tasks, making the dialogue highly relevant and coherent.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long pauses between turns; the transitions are consistently smooth and immediate (0 or 1-second gaps). There are many instances of self-overlap, where a speaker says a filler word like \"Mm,\" \"I see,\" or \"Uh\" during their own main utterance. These are characteristic of natural speech and do not disrupt the flow between speakers. There is one significant overlap where speaker B interrupts speaker A ([[00:43],[00:50]] overlaps with [[00:39],[00:44]]). However, B handles this interruption politely (\"Sorry to jump in...\") and for a relevant reason (to confirm booking details). This type of managed interruption is a common feature of natural, fluent conversation and is not considered harmful. Overall, the turn-taking is smooth and efficient.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/213",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: Hey, man. I haven't seen you in a while. How've you been?\n[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Um.\n[[00:03],[00:10]] B: I'm good. I've been meaning to call you, actually. I heard you're trying to quit\n[[00:05],[00:06]] B: Right.\n[[00:07],[00:08]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:09],[00:13]] A: Yeah, I am. It's been a week now and so far so good.\n[[00:10],[00:11]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:13],[00:21]] B: That's great! I'm really proud of you. Quitting smoking is one of the hardest things to do, but I know you can do it.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:18],[00:18]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:22],[00:26]] A: Thanks. It hasn't been easy, but I'm determined to stick with it this time.\n[[00:24],[00:25]] A: Really.\n[[00:27],[00:30]] B: Have you tried using gum or patches?\n[[00:31],[00:40]] A: Yeah, I started with gum, and that's been helping a lot. Every time I feel the urge to smoke, I chew gum instead and it takes the edge off until the urge goes away.\n[[00:34],[00:35]] A: I see.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] A: Okay,okay.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains a high level of response relevance and coherence. Speaker A starts with a general greeting, and Speaker B smoothly transitions the topic to A's attempt to quit smoking, which B has heard about. A confirms this, and the rest of the conversation logically follows this topic. B offers encouragement, and A expresses gratitude and determination. B then asks a relevant, supportive question about methods (gum/patches), and A provides a detailed and on-topic answer about using gum. Each turn is a direct and logical continuation of the previous one, creating a coherent and easy-to-follow conversation.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, awkward pauses between speaker turns; the transitions are smooth and natural, with gaps of one second at most, which is typical for conversation. There are a few instances of minor overlap (e.g., A's \"Yeah, I am\" at [00:09] starts just before B finishes at [00:10]). However, this is a natural, confirmatory overlap that signals active listening rather than an interruption. The other overlapping utterances are backchannels (\"Mhm\", \"Right\", \"I see\") or self-fillers, which are characteristic of fluent, natural dialogue and do not impede communication. There are no extended, competitive overlaps that would disrupt the conversational flow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/213",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:13]] A: Well, lately I've been feeling really tired all the time. No matter how much sleep I get, I just can't seem to get my energy back. And on top of that, I've been having this weird pain in my chest that comes and\n[[00:04],[00:04]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:06],[00:07]] A: Mm.\n[[00:08],[00:09]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:12],[00:21]] B: Pain in your chest? That sounds concerning. Have you noticed any other symptoms, like shortness of breath or dizziness?\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Really.\n[[00:22],[00:27]] A: No, not really. It's just the pain that comes and goes. But it's been worrying me a lot.\n[[00:24],[00:25]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:28],[00:32]] B: Let's take a look at your chart here. Have you been under a lot of stress lately?\n[[00:30],[00:30]] B: Mm.\n[[00:32],[00:47]] A: Yeah, I guess so. My job has been pretty demanding and my family has been going through some stuff too. But even before all that, I was starting to feel kind of off. Just not like I could focus on anything, and everything felt overwhelming.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] A: Um.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] A: Really.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:48],[00:56]] B: Like yourself? That could be a sign of something more than just stress. Have you noticed any changes in your appetite or sleep patterns?\n[[00:52],[00:54]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:57],[01:03]] A: Actually, now that you mention it, my appetite has been off too. I haven't been sleeping well either.\n[[01:05],[01:25]] B: Hmmm... well it sounds like you might be experiencing some anxiety or depression symptoms. It's possible that your fatigue could be related to that too. Let's do some blood work and see if we can rule anything else out, but in the meantime I'll give you a prescription for an antidepressant medication that might help with how you're feeling.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user is a patient describing a series of symptoms: fatigue, chest pain, stress, lack of focus, and changes in appetite and sleep. The other user is a healthcare provider who listens, asks relevant clarifying questions, and then formulates a preliminary diagnosis and action plan. The conversation is logically structured as a medical consultation. Speaker B's questions about other symptoms (shortness of breath), stress levels, and changes in appetite/sleep are directly relevant to the initial complaints from Speaker A. Each response builds logically on the previous turn, leading to a coherent conclusion. The dialogue is topically consistent from start to finish.\n\n\n\nThe turn-taking in the dialogue is smooth and natural. There is one very brief, one-second overlap from [00:12] to [00:13] as Speaker B begins to respond just as Speaker A is finishing a long turn, which is typical of natural conversation. The pauses between speaker turns are consistently short (one to two seconds). The longest pause is two seconds ([01:03] to [01:05]) before Speaker B delivers a potential diagnosis, which is an appropriate and natural moment for thought in such a context. There are no disruptive overlaps or awkwardly long silences that would harm the interactional flow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/214",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: Hi, I'm looking for a new mattress. What do you have?\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:03],[00:10]] B: We have a variety of mattresses, including firm, medium-firm, and soft. Which type are you looking\n[[00:05],[00:06]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:07],[00:08]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:10],[00:16]] A: I'm not really sure. I've been doing some research and I think a firmer mattress would be better for my back, but I'm not sure.\n[[00:12],[00:12]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:17],[00:29]] B: Let me show you our firmest mattress. It's made with gel memory foam that contours to your body and provides support where you need it most. It's also designed to relieve pressure points.\n[[00:23],[00:24]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:29],[00:35]] A: Sorry to cut in, but does it also help with keeping cool at night? I tend to sleep hot.\n[[00:32],[00:33]] A: Sure.\n[[00:35],[00:42]] B: Yes, the gel memory foam is designed to help regulate temperature, so it should keep you cooler at night.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] B: Mm.\n[[00:39],[00:39]] B: Um.\n[[00:43],[00:45]] A: That sounds like what I'm looking for. How much is it?\n[[00:46],[00:50]] B: It's $1,000.00.\n[[00:47],[00:48]] B: Right.\n[[00:50],[00:54]] A: That's a little out of my price range. What do you have that's cheaper?\n[[00:55],[01:00]] B: We have a variety of mattresses in different price ranges. Let me show you a few options.\n[[01:01],[01:01]] A: OK.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation follows a logical and coherent path of a customer inquiring about a product. Speaker A states their need (a new mattress), and Speaker B responds directly by offering categories and asking a clarifying question. Speaker A's uncertainty and follow-up about a firm mattress are on-topic. Speaker B's description of the firm mattress directly addresses A's expressed interest. Speaker A's interruption to ask about cooling is a relevant and practical question in this context. All subsequent exchanges about price and alternative options are logically connected to the initial goal of purchasing a mattress. The conversation is consistently on-topic and easy to follow.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the transitions are smooth and natural, with pauses lasting only a second at most, which is typical for turn-taking in a real conversation. While there are several instances of overlapping speech (e.g., [[00:01],[00:02]], [[00:05],[00:06]]), these are all brief, self-overlapping backchannel cues or fillers (like \"Mhm\", \"Okay\", \"Uh huh\"). They do not disrupt the other speaker or impede understanding; instead, they contribute to the naturalness of the dialogue. The one explicit interruption at [[00:29]] is handled politely (\"Sorry to cut in...\") and is a normal feature of engaged conversation. There are no harmful, extended overlaps where both speakers try to talk at once.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/217",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: I'm telling you, the earth is round. It's not flat.\n[[00:01],[00:01]] A: Really.\n[[00:03],[00:08]] B: I don't know, Spencer. I've heard a lot of people say that the earth might be flat.\n[[00:05],[00:06]] B: Uh.\n[[00:08],[00:14]] A: Yeah, but those people are wrong. I'm confident in what I believe, and I know that the earth is round.\n[[00:11],[00:12]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: How do you know?\n[[00:16],[00:28]] A: Well, for one thing, if you look at pictures of the earth from space, it's clearly round. And also, if you think about it logically, it just makes sense that the earth would be\n[[00:22],[00:24]] A: Right.\n[[00:27],[00:34]] B: Wait, are those pictures from space really reliable? I've read some articles claiming they might be doctored or misleading.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:34],[00:54]] A: Those pictures are taken by reputable space agencies like NASA. Besides, the way ships disappear over the horizon also supports a round earth. But I haven't even mentioned how gravity ensures that objects fall towards the center, which wouldn't happen consistently on a flat surface.\n[[00:40],[00:41]] A: Mm.\n[[00:42],[00:43]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:45],[00:45]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:55],[00:59]] B: Gravity is something I'm curious about. How does it prove the earth is round?\n[[00:56],[00:57]] B: That's cool.\n[[01:00],[01:17]] A: Gravity pulls objects towards the center of mass, which would be different if the earth were flat. Anyway, I understand your skepticism. It's okay,\" he said with a smile. \"I'm still confident in what I believe, and even if you don't believe me right now, maybe someday you will change your mind.\"\n[[01:05],[01:06]] A: I see.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance throughout. The conversation is a coherent debate about the shape of the Earth. Speaker B consistently responds to Speaker A's points with relevant questions and counter-arguments. For example, when A mentions pictures from space as evidence ([[00:16],[00:28]]), B directly challenges the reliability of that evidence ([[00:27],[00:34]]). Similarly, when A brings up gravity ([[00:34],[00:54]]), B follows up by asking specifically how gravity proves the Earth is round ([[00:55],[00:59]]). The topic is maintained without any digressions, and each turn logically follows the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, awkward pauses between speaker turns; the transitions are smooth and natural, with gaps of one second or less, which is typical for a normal conversation. There is a brief, one-second overlap from [[00:27]] to [[00:28]] where Speaker B begins to speak just before Speaker A finishes. This type of short overlap is common in engaged, natural dialogue and does not disrupt the flow. All other overlaps are self-overlaps where a speaker uses a filler word, which is also a feature of natural speech. The turn-taking is smooth and efficient.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/218",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: Can you book me a taxi from Avalon to De Luca Cucina and Bar?\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:06],[00:10]] B: Easy enough. What time would you like to leave by as well as\n[[00:08],[00:08]] B: Really.\n[[00:09],[00:15]] A: Sorry to jump in, I just need to arrive at De Luca by 07:30. It doesn't matter when I leave.\n[[00:11],[00:12]] A: Really.\n[[00:15],[00:27]] B: Got it. I booked that for you. The car will be a white Honda and the contact number is 07804995392.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:21],[00:21]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:22],[00:24]] B: Um.\n[[00:28],[00:36]] A: Thank you very much for your help today. By the way, did you mention the time the taxi will arrive at Avalon for pickup?\n[[00:31],[00:31]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:32],[00:33]] A: Sure.\n[[00:36],[00:43]] B: Oh, my mistake! I didn't mention it. The taxi will pick you up at 07:00 to ensure you arrive on time.\n[[00:39],[00:41]] B: Sure.\n[[00:44],[00:45]] A: Perfect, thanks again!\n[[00:46],[00:48]] B: You are very welcome, have a great day!",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user A initiates the conversation with a clear request to book a taxi. User B understands the request and asks a relevant clarifying question about the time. User A interrupts to provide a more specific constraint (arrival time, not departure time), which is a logical and important clarification. User B then successfully processes this new information and confirms the booking. When A points out that the pickup time was omitted, B acknowledges the mistake and provides the missing information along with a logical reason for the chosen time. The conversation is coherent, on-topic, and all responses are logically consistent with the preceding turns.\n\n\n\nThe dialogue flows smoothly without any harmful pauses.\n- Pause between [00:04] and [00:06] is 2 seconds, which is acceptable.\n- Other pauses between turns are 1 second or less, indicating a natural conversational rhythm.\nThere is one inter-speaker overlap between [00:09] and [00:10]. However, it is very brief (1 second) and is a natural interruption where speaker A clarifies their needs (\"Sorry to jump in...\"). This is a typical and non-disruptive conversational feature. The other overlaps noted in the transcript are artifacts where a speaker's own backchannels or fillers are transcribed during their main turn (e.g., B saying \"Mhm\" during their own longer sentence), which does not affect the interactional fluency between the two speakers. Overall, the fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/219",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: I just feel like I've hit rock bottom. I don't know how to pick myself up and start over.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:05],[00:11]] B: Well, let's talk about what's been going on in your life. You said you lost your job and your\n[[00:07],[00:08]] B: Sure.\n[[00:10],[00:20]] A: Yeah, I got fired from my job because I was using drugs on the clock. And then I couldn't pay my rent, so I got evicted. My family is really disappointed in me.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] A: Right.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] A: Really.\n[[00:21],[00:35]] B: It sounds like you're going through a lot right now. But it's good that you're here, wanting to get help. Let's start by talking about your drug use. Why do you think you started using drugs in the first place? Was there a specific incident or stressor that triggered it?\n[[00:25],[00:26]] B: Really.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] B: Um.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: Right.\n[[00:36],[00:45]] A: I don't know...I guess I was just trying to escape from my problems. But it only made things worse. Now I'm addicted and I can't stop.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] A: Cool.\n[[00:41],[00:42]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:46],[01:05]] B: Addiction is a disease, but it's one that can be treated with hard work and commitment from both you and us as your support system. We'll help you every step of the way, but ultimately it will be up to you to stay clean and sober once we discharge you from treatment. Are you willing to put in the work required?\n[[00:51],[00:52]] B: Yeah, yeah.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A begins by stating a problem, and Speaker B responds by acknowledging the problem and seeking to understand its components. Speaker A then elaborates on the issues, providing specific details that are directly relevant to the topic. Speaker B validates Speaker A's feelings and then logically pivots the conversation toward understanding the root cause of the drug use, which is a coherent next step in a therapeutic context. Speaker A's response is on-topic, answering the question about why they started using drugs. Finally, Speaker B's last turn is a direct and logical response to Speaker A's admission of addiction, framing it as a treatable disease and asking for commitment. The entire conversation is thematically coherent and logically consistent.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no prolonged pauses between turns that would indicate a breakdown in the conversational flow; the transitions are smooth and natural. The overlaps present are minor and not disruptive. For instance, the overlap between [[00:10]] and [[00:11]] is a natural interjection where Speaker A eagerly confirms and expands on what Speaker B is saying. Other listed \"overlaps\" are single-speaker filler words or affirmations (e.g., \"Sure,\" \"Right,\" \"Yeah, yeah\") that were likely recorded on a separate channel and do not represent two people talking over each other. These elements contribute to the natural feel of the dialogue rather than detracting from it.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/219",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Why do you always talk to other guys?\n[[00:04],[00:05]] B: I don't know, it's just fun.\n[[00:07],[00:09]] A: But don't you care about me at all?\n[[00:10],[00:17]] B: Of course I care about you, Yandel. But I also like talking to other people. It doesn't mean I don't care about you.\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: Cool.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:18],[00:20]] A: Why can't you just focus on me then?\n[[00:22],[00:31]] B: Because I'm not going to be with just one person my whole life. And even if we are together, I still want to talk to other people. It doesn't mean I don't love you.\n[[00:24],[00:25]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:26],[00:27]] B: Mm.\n[[00:32],[00:36]] A: But it feels like you're betraying me when you talk to other guys.\n[[00:33],[00:34]] A: Right.\n[[00:38],[00:44]] B: That's not what I'm trying to do, Yandel. I just want to be friends with\n[[00:41],[00:41]] B: Really.\n[[00:42],[00:49]] A: Friends? But how can you be sure that these guys just want to be friends too? What if they have other intentions?\n[[00:46],[00:47]] A: Cool.\n[[00:50],[00:58]] B: I understand your concern, but I believe in setting clear boundaries. I talk to other people because I like them, not because I don't like you.\n[[00:53],[00:55]] B: Mm.\n[[01:00],[01:04]] A: But I don't want to be friends with everyone. I only want to be friends with you.\n[[01:01],[01:02]] A: That's cool.\n[[01:04],[01:06]] B: Why can't you just trust me?\n[[01:07],[01:16]] A: Because I don't know if I can trust you. You're always talking to other guys and it makes me feel like I'm not good enough for you or that I'm not interesting enough to keep your attention.\n[[01:10],[01:11]] A: Sure.\n[[01:18],[01:25]] B: I get that you're feeling insecure, but I need you to understand that my social interactions don't diminish my feelings for you. You just have to trust me.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue presents a coherent and logical argument between two speakers, A and B. The topic is a relational conflict about jealousy and trust. Speaker A consistently expresses feelings of insecurity and jealousy (\"Why do you always talk to other guys?\", \"don't you care about me at all?\", \"it feels like you're betraying me\"). Speaker B consistently responds by defending their actions and attempting to reassure A (\"Of course I care about you\", \"It doesn't mean I don't love you\", \"I get that you're feeling insecure...\"). Each turn logically follows from the previous one, building the argument step-by-step. The conversation maintains its central theme throughout, demonstrating excellent topic coherence and relevance.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency of the dialogue is excellent and mimics a natural, emotional conversation. The pauses between speaker turns are all brief (1-2 seconds), which is appropriate for an engaged, back-and-forth discussion. There are many instances of self-overlap (e.g., B saying \"Cool\" at [00:12] during their own longer utterance), which act as natural-sounding filler or self-affirmation and do not disrupt the flow. The one significant overlap between speakers occurs from [00:42] to [00:44], where A interrupts B to question the word \"friends.\" This type of interruption is not a flaw; rather, it's a very realistic feature of a heated or emotional argument, enhancing the naturalness of the dialogue. There are no long, awkward pauses or disruptive extended overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_2/extracted_dialogues_man_girl/220",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: What's the best beauty product you've tried lately?\n[[00:04],[00:10]] B: Ummm, hmm… I'm going to have to say that the Besame Enamelled Copper Lipstick is amazing!\n[[00:07],[00:07]] B: I see.\n[[00:11],[00:13]] A: I've never heard of that. What is it?\n[[00:13],[00:21]] B: Well, it's a luxury lipstick. But this lipstick changes color when it's applied. It looks completely different on\n[[00:16],[00:16]] B: Mm.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:20],[00:25]] A: Wait, it changes color? Is it based on your skin tone or something else?\n[[00:22],[00:23]] A: Um.\n[[00:26],[00:31]] B: Exactly! It reacts with your skin's pH, so it ends up looking unique on everyone.\n[[00:28],[00:30]] B: Really.\n[[00:33],[00:36]] A: That sounds really pretty! How do you use it?\n[[00:36],[00:42]] B: You just apply it directly to your lips, and then your lips change color to a shade that complements your natural tone.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:43],[00:47]] A: Is it long-lasting, though? I hate when lipsticks fade too quickly.\n[[00:45],[00:46]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:48],[00:53]] B: Yes, it actually lasts for hours, so you won't need to reapply often.\n[[00:50],[00:51]] B: That's cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance and logical consistency.\n\n1. **A's opening question:** \"What's the best beauty product you've tried lately?\"\n2. **B's response:** B answers directly, naming a specific product, \"the Besame Enamelled Copper Lipstick.\" This is a perfectly relevant response.\n3. **A's follow-up:** A asks for more information about the product (\"What is it?\"). This is a logical continuation.\n4. **B's explanation:** B explains that it's a lipstick that changes color. This is a relevant description.\n5. **A's clarifying question:** A asks for the mechanism of the color change (\"Is it based on your skin tone or something else?\"). This shows A is engaged and follows the topic logically.\n6. **B's further explanation:** B explains it reacts with the skin's pH. This directly answers A's question and maintains topic coherence.\n7. **Subsequent turns:** The rest of the conversation continues in this logical, coherent manner. A asks about how to use it and its longevity, and B provides direct, relevant answers.\n\nThe dialogue is consistently on-topic, and each response is a logical and relevant reaction to the previous turn.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n* **Pauses:**\n * `[[00:02],[00:04]]`: A 2-second pause after the initial question. This is a normal thinking pause and not disruptive.\n * `[[00:31],[00:33]]`: A 2-second pause. This is also a natural pause between turns in a conversation.\n * Other pauses between turns are 1 second, which is very natural. There are no prolonged or awkward silences.\n\n* **Overlaps:**\n * The transcript shows several instances of a speaker overlapping with their own speech (e.g., B at `[[00:07]]`, `[[00:16]]`, `[[00:17]]`; A at `[[00:22]]`). These are very brief, single-word interjections like \"I see,\" \"Mm,\" \"Okay,\" and \"Um.\"\n * These are not extended overlaps where two speakers talk over each other. Instead, they function as natural backchannels or fillers while the speaker is formulating their thought. They do not disrupt the flow of the conversation or make it difficult to understand. The turn-taking between speaker A and speaker B is clean and smooth.\n\nSince there are no disruptive extended overlaps or long pauses, the interactional fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/220",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:05]] A: You know, he is my favorite author. I read The Great Gatsby every year for\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: Sure.\n[[00:04],[00:09]] B: Oh, I don't read books. I don't have time to, with my crazy schedule.\n[[00:06],[00:07]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:09],[00:13]] A: That's understandable. What kind of musician are you?\n[[00:11],[00:12]] A: Um.\n[[00:14],[00:18]] B: I sing. Do you listen to any particular genres or artists?\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Um.\n[[00:18],[00:24]] A: Actually, I do! I was just curious if you perform live often or mainly focus on recording?\n[[00:21],[00:21]] A: Ummm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A begins by sharing a personal interest in an author. Speaker B responds directly and logically, explaining they don't have time for books. Speaker A accepts this and smoothly pivots the conversation by asking about Speaker B's profession, which is a relevant follow-up to B mentioning a \"crazy schedule.\" Speaker B answers the question and then reciprocates by asking A a related question. Finally, A acknowledges B's question but continues the thread about B's music career, showing genuine interest. Each turn is a logical and coherent reaction to the previous one, creating a natural and engaging conversation.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns, indicating a smooth and natural conversational rhythm. The only instance of a direct overlap between speakers occurs from [00:04] to [00:05], where Speaker B begins to speak just before Speaker A finishes their sentence. This one-second overlap is brief and typical of an engaged, natural conversation, rather than a disruptive interruption. The other noted overlaps are just fillers or backchannels within a single speaker's turn, not inter-speaker issues. The turn-taking is seamless.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/221",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: What can you tell me about the the good luck chinese food takeaway?\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Right.\n[[00:04],[00:10]] B: It's an expensive Chinese restaurant in the south area of town. Would you like their contact\n[[00:06],[00:06]] B: Really.\n[[00:09],[00:14]] A: No, I would like a reservation for 5 people at 17:30 on Tuesday.\n[[00:11],[00:11]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:14],[00:20]] B: I was able to book it, reference number is L1PC8YVT.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Sure.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] A: Thanks so much.\n[[00:22],[00:24]] B: Is there anything else I can help you with today?\n[[00:25],[00:30]] A: I would also like a train from Leicester on Tuesday too.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] A: Uh.\n[[00:30],[00:32]] B: What time would you like to depart from Leicester?\n[[00:33],[00:39]] A: It should arrive in Cambridge by 11:15 on the same day that I made the restaurant reservation for.\n[[00:34],[00:35]] A: Really.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:39],[00:51]] B: I got you 1 ticket on the TR0363, you will arrive at 10:54, and reference # is YMVY35J5. Anything else?\n[[00:44],[00:45]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:51],[00:55]] A: No, I think that that is all I need. Thank you very much!\n[[00:53],[00:55]] A: Right.\n[[00:56],[00:58]] B: Anytime! Enjoy your visit.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user and the system maintain a coherent and logical conversation. The dialogue starts with a request for information about a restaurant. The system provides relevant details and then successfully fulfills a booking request. The conversation then logically transitions to a second, related request for a train booking. The system understands the constraints (destination, arrival time) and provides a suitable option. All responses are directly relevant to the user's requests, and the topics flow naturally from one to the next.\n\n\n\nThe interaction is very fluid. The pauses between turns are consistently short (1 second or less), leading to a natural and efficient conversational pace. While there are several instances of overlapping speech, they are all very brief and typical of natural conversation. They consist of short backchannels (e.g., \"Mhm\", \"Right\") or self-corrections/hesitations that do not disrupt the flow or cause confusion. There are no extended, disruptive overlaps or awkwardly long silences.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/222",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: I can't believe you would do this to me.\n[[00:02],[00:04]] B: Ernesto, I didn't do anything.\n[[00:04],[00:07]] A: I saw you kissing her, Mike. Don't lie to me.\n[[00:07],[00:10]] B: It's not what it looks like.\n[[00:10],[00:14]] A: Then what is it? Because it sure looked like you were kissing\n[[00:12],[00:12]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:13],[00:19]] B: Wait, can we take a moment to clarify what exactly you saw? I think there's a misunderstanding here.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:20],[00:25]] A: We were just talking and then she kissed me. I didn't kiss her back.\n[[00:21],[00:23]] A: I see.\n[[00:25],[00:29]] B: But you let her kiss you! That's just as bad.\n[[00:26],[00:27]] B: I see.\n[[00:29],[00:33]] A: Ernesto, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to hurt you.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:33],[00:36]] B: But you did hurt me. You broke my trust.\n[[00:34],[00:36]] B: I see.\n[[00:37],[00:42]] A: I know. And I'm really sorry about the whole situation. I should have pushed her away immediately.\n[[00:39],[00:39]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:43],[00:48]] B: Sorry to interrupt, but I need to understand—how do you plan to regain my trust after this?\n[[00:46],[00:46]] B: Really.\n[[00:49],[00:51]] A: I don't know if I can ever trust you again.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains a consistent topic, which is a confrontation about infidelity between two partners, Ernesto and Mike. The conversation follows a logical emotional progression from accusation ([00:00]-[00:07]), to defense and explanation ([00:07]-[00:19]), and then to apology and discussion of trust ([00:29]-[00:48]). Each turn is a direct and relevant response to the previous one, such as B's denial following A's accusation, and B's expression of hurt following A's apology.\n\nHowever, there is a severe breakdown in logical consistency regarding the speakers' roles starting at [00:20]. Speaker A (Ernesto), who begins as the accuser, suddenly claims, \"she kissed me,\" taking on the role of the person who was unfaithful. The roles then reverse, with Speaker B (Mike) becoming the accuser. This confusion is compounded when Speaker A says, \"Ernesto, I'm sorry\" ([00:29]), apparently apologizing to their own character. The final line from A, \"I don't know if I can ever trust you again\" ([00:49]), is also logically inconsistent, as A has spent the last several turns apologizing for their own actions. Despite the thematic coherence, these fundamental contradictions in speaker roles and facts make the dialogue's relevance problematic.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency of the dialogue is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth and happens without any prolonged or awkward pauses between speakers. For instance, Speaker B's turn at [00:02] begins immediately after Speaker A's turn ends. This natural pacing is maintained throughout the entire conversation. There are several instances of minor overlap (e.g., [00:13]-[00:14]), but they are very brief and typical of a heated, emotional conversation. The other noted overlaps are backchannels from the speaker who is currently holding the turn (e.g., \"Uh huh,\" \"I see,\" \"Mhm\"), which do not disrupt the interactional flow between the two main speakers. The overall effect is a fast-paced and fluid exchange.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/222",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: Hey! I'm going to start making dinner now. What do you want to\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:03],[00:10]] B: Sorry to interrupt, but I was just wondering if we have anything in the fridge that needs to be used up before it goes bad?\n[[00:05],[00:07]] B: Really.\n[[00:10],[00:20]] A: I don't really feel like cooking tonight. We can just order something instead. I was thinking of ordering some pizza. But if there's anything we need to use up, I can whip up something simple with that.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] A: Right.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:21],[00:27]] B: I don't mind pizza, but what if we don't want it tomorrow? We could always reheat it, but I get your point.\n[[00:23],[00:25]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:27],[00:38]] A: I don't think that'll be a problem, but if you're worried about leftovers, we could always get something else like burgers. Or maybe we could order just enough so we don't have too much left over.\n[[00:30],[00:31]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:32],[00:33]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:38],[00:46]] B: Burgers sound good, but we've had them recently. Maybe we should just stick with pizza this time? Plus, it's been a while since we had it.\n[[00:40],[00:41]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:42],[00:43]] B: Really.\n[[00:47],[00:48]] A: Yeah, pizza it is.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation follows a logical and coherent path of negotiating what to have for dinner. Speaker A starts by suggesting cooking, but then Speaker B introduces a relevant constraint (using up food). Speaker A adapts by suggesting ordering out, specifically pizza, while still acknowledging B's point. The conversation then naturally progresses to discussing the pros and cons of pizza (leftovers), leading to an alternative suggestion (burgers). Speaker B provides a reason for rejecting the alternative and then circles back to the pizza idea, which Speaker A finally agrees to. Each turn is a direct and logical response to the previous one, maintaining a clear and consistent topic throughout the interaction.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no prolonged pauses between turns that would indicate a breakdown in communication; the transitions are smooth and natural (e.g., the 1-second gaps at [00:20]-[00:21] and [00:46]-[00:47] are typical conversational pauses). There is an overlap at the beginning ([00:03]-[00:04]), but Speaker B explicitly acknowledges it by saying, \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which is a natural conversational repair strategy. The other overlaps are brief backchannels (e.g., \"Really,\" \"Yeah, yeah\") which, despite being misattributed in the transcript to the current speaker, function as signs of active listening and do not disrupt the flow. There are no extended, competitive overlaps that would harm the interaction. The overall flow is fluid and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/223",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: What do you think about Trump's administration?\n[[00:02],[00:07]] B: It's been very interesting. He's been great for the\n[[00:04],[00:05]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:06],[00:14]] A: Sorry to jump in, but when you say \"great,\" do you mean specifically in terms of economic policies, or are you referring to something else?\n[[00:08],[00:09]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:10],[00:10]] A: Cool.\n[[00:14],[00:23]] B: I was talking about the economy, but it's interesting you ask. His policies have had a big impact on the market. Anyway, do you have any friends that support him?\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:24],[00:31]] A: No, I do not. My friend is a democrat, and his wife is a moderate republican, so their household is quite divided.\n[[00:27],[00:27]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:32],[00:38]] B: A democrat and a republican in the same household? That must lead to some interesting conversations!\n[[00:33],[00:34]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: Sure.\n[[00:38],[00:44]] A: Definitely! And it's funny because his wife doesn't even like Trump, but she finds his speeches entertaining.\n[[00:40],[00:42]] A: Uh huh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and coherence of the dialogue.\n1. **Turn 1 (A -> B):** A asks a direct question about Trump's administration. B's response begins to answer it (\"It's been very interesting. He's been great for the...\"). This is a relevant start.\n2. **Turn 2 (A -> B):** A interrupts B to ask for clarification on the word \"great.\" This is highly relevant as it seeks to understand B's initial point more deeply.\n3. **Turn 3 (B -> A):** B confirms A's guess (\"I was talking about the economy\") and then pivots the conversation by asking a related question about A's friends. This is a natural topic shift in a casual conversation, maintaining thematic coherence around political affiliations.\n4. **Turn 4 (A -> B):** A answers B's question directly (\"No, I do not\") and provides a relevant anecdote about a politically divided household. This is a perfectly logical and coherent continuation.\n5. **Turn 5 (B -> A):** B responds directly to A's anecdote, expressing interest. This is a relevant and engaged reaction.\n6. **Turn 6 (A):** A elaborates on the anecdote, adding more detail. This is a direct continuation of the previous turn.\n\nOverall, the conversation flows logically. Each speaker's turn is a direct and relevant response to what was said before. The topic shifts smoothly and makes sense in the context of the conversation.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, focusing on pauses and overlaps.\n- **Pauses:** There are no long or awkward pauses between turns. The transition from one speaker to the next is smooth and timely (e.g., the one-second pause between B's turn ending at [00:23] and A's starting at [00:24] is natural).\n- **Overlaps:**\n - There is a significant overlap from [00:06] to [00:07] where A cuts off B. However, this is not a fluency error; it's a deliberate and polite interruption for clarification, which A acknowledges by saying, \"Sorry to jump in.\" This makes the interaction feel more dynamic and natural rather than flawed.\n - The other overlaps are very brief backchannels (e.g., \"Mm hmm,\" \"Yeah, yeah,\" \"Uh huh\"). These are not harmful. In fact, they are indicators of good interactional fluency, as they signal active listening and engagement without disrupting the speaker.\n\nThe conversation flows very well. The turn-taking is smooth, and the use of backchannels and a managed interruption contributes to a natural and fluent conversational style.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/223",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hey boss, what's up?\n[[00:02],[00:04]] B: Not much, what's up with you?\n[[00:04],[00:06]] A: I'm just getting ready to\n[[00:05],[00:11]] B: Oh, before you go, did you check the report I sent earlier? I need your feedback by the end of the day.\n[[00:07],[00:08]] B: Really.\n[[00:12],[00:18]] A: I haven't seen it yet, but I'll look at it as soon as I get to work. I was just saying I'm getting ready to leave for work.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:19],[00:21]] B: Okay, well I'll let you get to it then.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] A: Thanks.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and logical consistency of the dialogue.\n1. **A: \"Hey boss, what's up?\"** - A standard, relevant greeting.\n2. **B: \"Not much, what's up with you?\"** - A standard, relevant reply that returns the question.\n3. **A: \"I'm just getting ready to\"** - A starts to answer B's question.\n4. **B: \"Oh, before you go, did you check the report I sent earlier?...\"** - B interrupts A, but the interruption is contextually relevant. B, the boss, has an urgent work-related question. The topic shift is logical given their relationship and the urgency implied.\n5. **A: \"I haven't seen it yet, but I'll look at it as soon as I get to work. I was just saying I'm getting ready to leave for work.\"** - A's response is perfectly relevant. It directly answers B's question about the report and then coherently clarifies what they were about to say before the interruption.\n6. **B: \"Okay, well I'll let you get to it then.\"** - A logical closing remark from B, acknowledging A's plan.\n7. **A: \"Thanks.\"** - A relevant and polite closing.\nThe conversation flows logically from a greeting to an urgent work matter and then to a polite conclusion. All responses are relevant and coherent. The two odd utterances (`B: Really.` and `A: Okay,okay.`) appear to be transcription errors as they overlap with the same speaker's main turn and don't disrupt the primary conversational thread.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n1. **Pauses**: I will check the timestamps for pauses between turns.\n * Between A at `[00:02]` and B at `[00:02]`: No pause.\n * Between B at `[00:04]` and A at `[00:04]`: No pause.\n * Between B at `[00:11]` and A at `[00:12]`: A 1-second pause, which is natural.\n * Between A at `[00:18]` and B at `[00:19]`: A 1-second pause, which is also natural.\n * Between B at `[00:21]` and A at `[00:21]`: No pause.\n * Conclusion on pauses: There are no long or awkward pauses. The pacing is natural.\n2. **Overlaps**: I will check the timestamps for overlapping speech.\n * `[[00:04],[00:06]] A: I'm just getting ready to`\n * `[[00:05],[00:11]] B: Oh, before you go...`\n * There is a one-second overlap (`[00:05]` to `[00:06]`) where B interrupts A. While this is an \"extended overlap,\" it functions as a natural interruption in this context (a boss needing to ask an urgent question). It doesn't indicate a breakdown in communication; rather, it's a realistic feature of such a conversation.\n * The other two overlaps (`B: Really.` at `[00:07]` and `A: Okay,okay.` at `[00:14]`) are self-overlaps where the speaker talks over their own utterance. These are most likely transcription artifacts or brief backchanneling and do not harm the interactional fluency between the two speakers.\n * Conclusion on overlaps: The main interruption is contextually appropriate and managed well by both speakers. The dialogue remains fluent and natural despite it.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/225",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:06]] A: I'm really impressed with your wine list. You have a great selection of wines from all over the\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: Um.\n[[00:05],[00:12]] B: Thank you, sir. Speaking of the wine list, I was wondering if you have any specific preferences or regions you usually enjoy?\n[[00:09],[00:10]] B: Um.\n[[00:13],[00:19]] A: I can tell. I'm particularly impressed with your selection of red wines. Do you have any recommendations?\n[[00:16],[00:17]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:20],[00:30]] B: Well, if you're looking for a red wine, I would recommend our Pinot Noir. It's a light-bodied wine that pairs well with most types of dishes, especially those with earthy flavors.\n[[00:23],[00:24]] B: Really.\n[[00:24],[00:25]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:30],[00:35]] A: Sorry to jump in, but does it also go well with something rich, like a steak?\n[[00:32],[00:33]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:35],[00:39]] B: Absolutely, it complements steak beautifully. I'll bring your wine right out.\n[[00:37],[00:37]] B: Uh huh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance.\n\n1. **A's opening [00:00]-[00:06]:** A compliments the wine list. This sets the topic.\n2. **B's response [00:05]-[00:12]:** B thanks A and asks a relevant follow-up question about preferences to help narrow down the selection. This is a logical and coherent response.\n3. **A's response [00:13]-[00:19]:** A specifies their interest in red wines and asks for a recommendation. This directly answers B's question and moves the conversation forward logically.\n4. **B's response [00:20]-[00:30]:** B provides a specific recommendation (Pinot Noir) and explains its characteristics, which is a direct and helpful answer to A's request.\n5. **A's response [00:30]-[00:35]:** A asks a specific, clarifying question about pairing the recommended wine with steak. This is a relevant and logical follow-up.\n6. **B's response [00:35]-[00:39]:** B directly answers A's question, confirming the pairing is good, and concludes the interaction by offering to bring the wine.\n\nOverall, the dialogue is perfectly logical and coherent. Each speaker's turn is a direct and relevant response to the previous one, creating a focused and purposeful conversation.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:** I will check the time gaps between turns.\n * Between B at [00:12] and A at [00:13], there is a 1-second gap. This is a natural pause.\n * Between A at [00:19] and B at [00:20], there is a 1-second gap. This is also natural.\n * Between B at [00:30] and A at [00:30], there is no pause.\n * Between A at [00:35] and B at [00:35], there is no pause.\n * Conclusion: There are no long or awkward pauses in the conversation. The flow is smooth.\n\n2. **Overlaps:** I will check for simultaneous speech.\n * There is a brief, one-second overlap between A [00:00]-[00:06] and B [00:05]-[00:12]. This is a very minor and common type of overlap that does not disrupt the flow; it shows B is engaged and ready to respond.\n * The other overlaps noted in the transcript (e.g., [00:16]-[00:17], [00:23]-[00:25]) are from the same speaker, representing asides or fillers, not interruptions. They do not negatively impact the interactional fluency between speakers.\n * Speaker A's interruption at [00:30] is acknowledged (\"Sorry to jump in\") and is a natural part of dynamic conversation, not a fluency issue.\n\nOverall, the interactional fluency is excellent. The conversation flows naturally with no disruptive pauses or overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/226",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Wow, you look amazing! What's your secret?\n[[00:03],[00:08]] B: I don't really have a secret, I just try to eat healthy and exercise\n[[00:05],[00:06]] B: Really.\n[[00:07],[00:14]] A: Sorry to jump in, but when you say \"healthy,\" what exactly do you mean? Like, do you follow a specific diet?\n[[00:10],[00:11]] A: Cool.\n[[00:14],[00:26]] B: Not really a strict diet, just balanced meals with plenty of vegetables and lean proteins. I was about to mention that I also try to exercise regularly, which is a big part of it too.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Really.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] B: Uh.\n[[00:22],[00:22]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:26],[00:31]] A: That sounds like a lot of work. I don't think I could ever be that disciplined.\n[[00:28],[00:28]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:31],[00:41]] B: It's not really that hard once you get into the habit. Plus, it makes me feel good to know that I'm taking care of my body and mind, which helps me stay focused and energized.\n[[00:34],[00:35]] B: Really.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] B: I see.\n[[00:42],[00:47]] A: Speaking of habits, how did you manage to stick to it? I always struggle with consistency.\n[[00:44],[00:44]] A: Really.\n[[00:47],[01:00]] B: It took some time, but I started small and gradually built up. Now, it's just part of my routine. I was going to say that it makes me feel good to know I'm taking care of my body, which keeps me motivated.\n[[00:51],[00:52]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[01:01],[01:05]] A: Yeah, I can see how that would be motivating. Do you mind if I ask how often you work out?\n[[01:06],[01:14]] B: I usually try to go to the gym four or five times a week, and I also do some sort of cardio at home on the days when I can't make it to the gym.\n[[01:14],[01:17]] A: That's a lot! I'm impressed.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue based on Response Relevance.\n\n1. **A: \"Wow, you look amazing! What's your secret?\"** - This is a clear opening with a compliment and a question.\n2. **B: \"I don't really have a secret, I just try to eat healthy and exercise\"** - This is a direct and relevant answer to A's question, setting the topic.\n3. **A: \"Sorry to jump in, but when you say 'healthy,' what exactly do you mean? Like, do you follow a specific diet?\"** - This is a logical follow-up question, seeking clarification on B's statement. It shows A is actively listening and engaged.\n4. **B: \"Not really a strict diet, just balanced meals... I also try to exercise regularly...\"** - B answers A's question directly and elaborates on their previous point, maintaining topic coherence.\n5. **A: \"That sounds like a lot of work. I don't think I could ever be that disciplined.\"** - This is a relevant personal reflection on B's routine, continuing the conversation naturally.\n6. **B: \"It's not really that hard once you get into the habit...\"** - B responds to A's concern, offering a different perspective and justification (feeling good, energized). The conversation flows logically.\n7. **A: \"Speaking of habits, how did you manage to stick to it?\"** - A cleverly picks up on the keyword \"habit\" to ask another relevant question, showing excellent conversational skill and topic coherence.\n8. **B: \"It took some time, but I started small and gradually built up...\"** - B directly answers the question about consistency.\n9. **A & B's final turns:** The dialogue continues this pattern of relevant questions and answers about workout frequency, ending with a concluding remark from A.\n\nOverall, the dialogue is exceptionally coherent. Each speaker's turn is a logical and relevant response to the previous one. The topic is developed progressively and naturally. There are no inconsistencies or abrupt topic changes.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue based on Interactional Fluency, specifically looking for extended overlaps and long pauses between turns.\n\n**Pauses:**\nA close look at the timestamps shows that the pauses between the end of one speaker's turn and the beginning of the next are consistently short (1-2 seconds). For example:\n- B finishes at [00:08], A has already started at [00:07] (an overlap).\n- A finishes at [00:14], B starts at [00:14] (no pause).\n- B finishes at [00:26], A starts at [00:26] (no pause).\n- A finishes at [00:31], B starts at [00:31] (no pause).\n- B finishes at [01:00], A starts at [01:01] (1-second pause).\nThe longer periods of silence (e.g., from [00:52] to [01:00]) occur *within* a single speaker's turn, not *between* turns. These are intra-turn pauses, which can be natural as a speaker gathers their thoughts. There are no prolonged, awkward silences between speakers.\n\n**Overlaps:**\n- The transcript shows numerous instances of a speaker talking over themselves (e.g., B at [00:05] and [00:18], A at [00:28]). In a natural conversation, these are most likely misattributed backchannels (e.g., A saying \"Really\" or \"Okay, okay\" to show they are listening while B talks). Assuming these are signs of active listening, they contribute positively to fluency.\n- There is one clear overlap where A interrupts B ([00:07]-[00:08]), but A acknowledges it by saying, \"Sorry to jump in,\" which makes it a natural, socially-aware interruption rather than a jarring flaw.\n\nConclusion: The turn-taking is smooth and seamless. There are no detrimental long pauses between turns, and the overlaps appear to be natural backchannels or socially-managed interruptions, indicating a highly fluent and interactive conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/227",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: How are you doing?\n[[00:02],[00:09]] B: I'm great! My senior year starts this September, and I'm excited\n[[00:04],[00:05]] B: I see.\n[[00:06],[00:06]] B: Um.\n[[00:09],[00:14]] A: Sorry to jump in, but I just remembered—have you managed to sort out your living situation for the year yet?\n[[00:10],[00:11]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:15],[00:19]] B: Not yet. I have a place lined up, but it's pretty expensive.\n[[00:16],[00:18]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:21],[00:28]] A: Yeah, that's what most of the dorms around me are like. I just don't have the money for a single room, so I might have to share with someone to cut costs.\n[[00:25],[00:25]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:29],[00:36]] B: The money situation is tough for everyone, but have you considered looking into off-campus housing? Sometimes it's cheaper.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:38],[00:40]] A: I hear that!",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the provided dialogue for Response Relevance.\n\n1. **A: \"How are you doing?\"** -> **B: \"I'm great! My senior year starts this September, and I'm excited\"**: B's response is directly relevant. It answers the question and provides related context (senior year), which is a natural way to elaborate in a conversation.\n2. **B's turn** -> **A: \"Sorry to jump in, but I just remembered—have you managed to sort out your living situation for the year yet?\"**: A's turn is logically connected to B's mention of starting senior year. Finding a living situation is a common and relevant concern for a student. A even acknowledges the topic shift (\"Sorry to jump in, but I just remembered\"), which makes the transition smooth.\n3. **A's question** -> **B: \"Not yet. I have a place lined up, but it's pretty expensive.\"**: B provides a direct and relevant answer to A's question about their living situation.\n4. **B's statement about cost** -> **A: \"Yeah, that's what most of the dorms around me are like... I might have to share with someone to cut costs.\"**: A shows empathy and relates B's problem to their own. This is a highly coherent and logical response that keeps the conversation focused on the topic of expensive student housing.\n5. **A's money concerns** -> **B: \"The money situation is tough for everyone, but have you considered looking into off-campus housing? Sometimes it's cheaper.\"**: B acknowledges A's point (\"The money situation is tough for everyone\") and then offers a relevant, constructive suggestion. The topic coherence is maintained perfectly.\n6. **B's suggestion** -> **A: \"I hear that!\"**: This is a common idiom expressing agreement and understanding. It's a relevant and appropriate response to B's statement.\n\nOverall, the dialogue is highly coherent. Each turn logically follows from the previous one. The topic of student life (senior year, housing, finances) is developed naturally.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the Interactional Fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n**Pause Analysis:**\n* Between A `[00:01]` and B `[00:02]`: 1-second pause. This is a normal turn-taking gap.\n* Between A `[00:14]` and B `[00:15]`: 1-second pause. This is a normal turn-taking gap.\n* Between B `[00:19]` and A `[00:21]`: 2-second pause. This is still a very natural and acceptable pause, allowing for a moment of thought.\n* Between A `[00:28]` and B `[00:29]`: 1-second pause. This is a normal turn-taking gap.\n* Between B `[00:36]` and A `[00:38]`: 2-second pause. Again, a natural and acceptable pause.\n\nConclusion on pauses: There are no prolonged or awkward pauses. All pauses are brief and contribute to a natural conversational rhythm.\n\n**Overlap Analysis:**\n* `[[00:02],[00:09]] B: ...` and `[[00:09],[00:14]] A: ...`: A starts speaking at the exact moment B finishes. There is no temporal overlap here. A's \"Sorry to jump in\" refers to changing the topic, not to speaking over B.\n* The other utterances like `[[00:04],[00:05]] B: I see.` or `[[00:10],[00:11]] A: That's cool.` are either self-contained fillers within a speaker's own turn or potential transcription errors, but they do not create an overlap between the two main speakers. For instance, Speaker A cannot say two different things at once (`[[00:09],[00:14]]` and `[[00:10],[00:11]]`). Regardless of the transcription quirk, there is no harmful overlap where the two participants are talking over each other.\n\nConclusion on overlaps: There are no extended or disruptive overlaps. The turn-taking is smooth.\n\nOverall, the interactional fluency is excellent, with a natural pace and clean turn-taking.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 2
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/227",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hey, what's up?\n[[00:02],[00:05]] B: Not much. Just hanging out.\n[[00:03],[00:04]] B: Right.\n[[00:06],[00:10]] A: I heard you snuck out last night. What were you\n[[00:08],[00:09]] A: Mm.\n[[00:09],[00:13]] B: What? How did you find out? I thought I was being careful.\n[[00:10],[00:12]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:14],[00:18]] A: Our parents were furious. You could have gotten in a lot of trouble.\n[[00:15],[00:17]] A: I see.\n[[00:19],[00:22]] B: I know. I'm sorry. I'll never do it again.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] B: Really.\n[[00:23],[00:29]] A: You better not. Or else you'll be grounded for even longer than last time. You really need to think things through.\n[[00:25],[00:27]] A: Right.\n[[00:30],[00:34]] B: I get it, I get it. I really won't do it again. I promise.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Ummm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation follows a logical and coherent path. Speaker A initiates a confrontation about Speaker B sneaking out. Speaker B's response is one of surprise and inquiry (\"What? How did you find out?\"), which is a natural reaction. The subsequent turns from A (explaining the parents' anger and giving a warning) and B (apologizing and promising not to repeat the action) are all directly relevant and contribute to the progression of the topic. The conversation remains on-topic and is easy to follow.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. The turn-taking is smooth and natural. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; all pauses are one second, which is typical for a natural conversation. There is one brief, one-second overlap where B interrupts A ([[00:09],[00:13]] B starts while [[00:06],[00:10]] A is finishing). This overlap is not disruptive; in fact, it enhances the naturalness of the dialogue, reflecting B's surprise and eagerness to respond. The other overlapping utterances are self-overlaps (e.g., \"Mm\", \"Right\", \"I see\"), which are filler words spoken by the current speaker and do not interfere with the flow of the conversation between the two participants.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/229",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: I am looking for a high-end Indian restaurant, are there any in town?\n[[00:02],[00:02]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:04],[00:11]] B: There are 14 expensive Indian restaurants in Cambridge. Is there an area of town that you prefer?\n[[00:07],[00:08]] B: Uh.\n[[00:11],[00:14]] A: The restaurant should be in the west.\n[[00:14],[00:20]] B: The Tandoori Palace sounds like just what you are looking for. Would you like a\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Uh.\n[[00:19],[00:23]] A: Oh, before I forget, does the Tandoori Palace have good vegetarian options?\n[[00:21],[00:22]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:24],[00:29]] B: Yes, they are known for their extensive vegetarian menu. Would you like a reservation?\n[[00:26],[00:27]] B: I see.\n[[00:29],[00:34]] A: Yes please, for 1 person on Saturday at 19:15.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] A: Um.\n[[00:34],[00:43]] B: All right, I've made your reservation. The reference number is NGOQ9J96. Is there anything else I can help you with?\n[[00:38],[00:39]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:43],[00:46]] A: Nope, that's all. Thank you for your help!\n[[00:46],[00:48]] B: You are welcome, enjoy your dinner!",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user and the agent maintain a logically consistent and coherent conversation. The agent correctly identifies the user's initial request for a high-end Indian restaurant, provides the number of matching options, and asks a relevant clarifying question about the location. The user provides the location, and the agent offers a suitable recommendation. The user then interrupts to ask a follow-up question about vegetarian options, which the agent answers directly before seamlessly returning to the booking process. The dialogue proceeds logically to the confirmation of the reservation and a natural conclusion. Each turn is directly relevant to the preceding one, demonstrating excellent topic coherence.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between turns, indicating a smooth and natural conversational rhythm. For example, the transition from the user's request for a location ([[00:11],[00:14]]) to the agent's suggestion ([[00:14],[00:20]]) is immediate. There is one minor overlap between [[00:19]] and [[00:20]] where the user begins speaking just as the agent is finishing a sentence. This is a very brief and natural-sounding interruption, typical of human conversation, and does not harm the interaction. The agent yields the floor appropriately, allowing the conversation to flow without issue. Overall, the turn-taking is seamless.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/230",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: I am looking for a place to go!\n[[00:02],[00:06]] B: I can certainly help you find something. Do you have a type of attraction in mind?\n[[00:03],[00:04]] B: Mm.\n[[00:06],[00:12]] A: I like looking at the architecture of old buildings. I think it says a lot about how we used to\n[[00:09],[00:10]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:11],[00:17]] B: Sorry to jump in, but are you interested in any specific architectural styles or periods?\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Mm.\n[[00:17],[00:21]] A: Not really, I just appreciate the craftsmanship and history.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] A: Um.\n[[00:21],[00:27]] B: We have a lot of interesting architecture here in Cambridge. Is there a particular area of town you're interested in?\n[[00:23],[00:24]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:28],[00:29]] A: What would you suggest?\n[[00:30],[00:39]] B: Here are a few suggestions from the centre: All Saint's Church and Holy Trinity Church, both are free to visit and offer a rich historical background.\n[[00:33],[00:34]] B: I see.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:40],[00:45]] A: Oh, can you tell me more about the All Saint's Church? Like, is it open to visitors all year round?\n[[00:41],[00:42]] A: Sure.\n[[00:45],[00:55]] B: Yes, All Saint's Church is open year-round. As for Holy Trinity Church, it is also worth visiting. I haven't mentioned its postcode yet.\n[[00:48],[00:49]] B: Right.\n[[00:50],[00:51]] B: Um.\n[[00:55],[01:00]] A: The Holy Trinity Church sounds lovely. Can you give me their postcode, please?\n[[01:01],[01:06]] B: Yes, their postcode is cb23nz. Can I get any other information for you?\n[[01:06],[01:08]] A: No that will be all. Thanks.\n[[01:09],[01:14]] B: You're quite welcome. Thanks for contacting the Cambridge TownInfo Centre and have a great day!",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user A starts by stating a general need: \"looking for a place to go\". Speaker B responds appropriately by offering help and asking a clarifying question about the type of attraction. A specifies an interest in \"the architecture of old buildings\". B continues to narrow down the request by asking about specific styles, which A clarifies is not a preference. B then logically moves to ask about a preferred area of town. When A asks for a suggestion, B provides two excellent, relevant options: \"All Saint's Church and Holy Trinity Church\". A asks for more details about one of the suggestions, and B answers the question directly (\"Yes, All Saint's Church is open year-round\"). B then proactively offers information about the other church, which A then follows up on. The conversation proceeds logically to the end, with B providing the requested postcode and A concluding the call. All responses are relevant and the dialogue is thematically coherent from start to finish.\n\n\n\nThe turn-taking in the dialogue is smooth and natural. There are no prolonged pauses between turns; the gaps are consistently one second or less, which is typical for a normal conversation. There is one notable overlap where B interrupts A at [00:11]-[00:12]. However, B explicitly acknowledges this by saying, \"Sorry to jump in,\" which makes the interruption feel polite rather than disruptive. The other overlaps noted in the transcript (e.g., \"Mm.\", \"Uh huh.\", \"Ummm.\") are backchanneling or filler words spoken by the current speaker within their own turn, which is a natural part of speech and does not impede the flow of the conversation between the two parties. Overall, the interactional fluency is high.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/231",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: Hey, Ani! I saw you drop your keys back there. Here you go!\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Uh.\n[[00:03],[00:06]] B: Oh, thanks man. I appreciate it.\n[[00:06],[00:11]] A: No problem. I know how frustrating it can be to lose your\n[[00:08],[00:09]] A: Mm.\n[[00:10],[00:15]] B: Actually, do you remember the last time I lost my keys? It took me hours to find them!\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: Right.\n[[00:16],[00:24]] A: Yeah, tell me about it. It seems like every time I turn around, I'm misplacing my wallet or phone. It's like a never-ending cycle.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:24],[00:30]] B: It must be something in the air! But seriously, I need to find a better way to keep track of them.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] B: I see.\n[[00:30],[00:35]] A: I know the feeling. But at least you have a helpful friend like me around to pick them up for you!\n[[00:32],[00:33]] A: Really.\n[[00:36],[00:39]] B: That's true. I'm lucky to have you as a friend, Alayla.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] B: Uh.\n[[00:40],[00:45]] A: I'm just happy to help out a friend in need. That's what friends are for, right?\n[[00:43],[00:44]] A: Mm.\n[[00:46],[00:49]] B: Absolutely. Thanks again for your help.\n[[00:49],[00:55]] A: Don't mention it. Anytime you need a helping hand, don't hesitate to let me know.\n[[00:51],[00:52]] A: Uh huh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance and topic coherence. It begins with a clear, situational event (A returning B's dropped keys). Each subsequent turn is a logical and relevant reaction to the previous one. The conversation naturally expands from the specific event to a more general, relatable topic of misplacing items, and then to a heartwarming exchange about the value of their friendship. The progression is smooth and all responses are contextually appropriate and consistent.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very high. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the transitions are smooth and natural, with pauses of one second or less, which is typical for a normal conversation. There is one brief, one-second overlap ([[00:10],[00:11]]) where Speaker B eagerly interjects with a related anecdote. This is not a disruptive overlap but rather a common feature of engaged, natural dialogue. The numerous short backchannels (e.g., \"Mhm,\" \"Right,\" \"Uh huh\") are placed appropriately and signal active listening without interrupting the flow, further contributing to the conversation's natural rhythm.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/232",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: I found this picture in your room. Who is she?\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Sure.\n[[00:04],[00:07]] B: That's Alex. We went out a few times before I met you.\n[[00:05],[00:06]] B: Um.\n[[00:08],[00:10]] A: Why did you cheat on me with her?\n[[00:10],[00:14]] B: I don't know. I was drunk and she was there and it just\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:14],[00:19]] A: Happened? That's not a good enough reason. You need to give me a better explanation than that.\n[[00:15],[00:17]] A: Sure.\n[[00:20],[00:24]] B: I'm sorry, Kristy. It was a mistake and I'll never do it again.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] B: Really.\n[[00:24],[00:26]] A: What about all the other times you've cheated on me?\n[[00:27],[00:31]] B: There haven't been any other instances where I've been unfaithful to you.\n[[00:28],[00:29]] B: Um.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] A: I don't believe you.\n[[00:33],[00:37]] B: Fine, there have been other times, but this is the first time I've been caught.\n[[00:34],[00:36]] B: I see.\n[[00:38],[00:39]] A: Why should I believe you?\n[[00:39],[00:41]] B: Because I'm telling the truth and I love you.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue presents a coherent and logical conversation between two speakers, A and B. It revolves around the central topic of infidelity. Speaker A confronts Speaker B, and B's responses, while evasive and dishonest at first, are directly related to A's accusations. The conversation progresses naturally from confrontation to denial, then to a confession. Each turn is a logical follow-up to the previous one, maintaining strong topic coherence throughout the interaction.\n\n\n\nThe turn-taking in the dialogue is smooth and natural. There are no extended pauses between turns that would disrupt the flow; the brief one-second gaps are typical for a conversation, especially a tense one. All listed overlaps (e.g., \"Sure,\" \"Um,\" \"Okay, okay\") are short, intra-speaker utterances (filler words spoken by the same person during their main turn) rather than disruptive interruptions between speakers. These do not harm the interactional fluency. The conversation flows without any significant interruptions or delays.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/232",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:05]] A: Hey, I'm Kenadie. I saw you from over there and thought you were really cute, so I came over to say hi.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Right.\n[[00:05],[00:09]] B: Hey! I'm Derick. Thanks for coming over! So what do you do?\n[[00:07],[00:08]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:10],[00:15]] A: I'm a student right now, but I hope to be a journalist or something like that someday. What about you?\n[[00:12],[00:13]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:15],[00:22]] B: Oh, I just graduated college. I'm not really sure what I want to do with my life yet, but hopefully something that involves helping\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Really.\n[[00:21],[00:27]] A: Oh, like in social work or maybe healthcare? Those fields are really impactful.\n[[00:24],[00:25]] A: Uh.\n[[00:27],[00:34]] B: Yeah, something along those lines. I just know I want to make a difference. So, have you been to this club before?\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: Um.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Sure.\n[[00:34],[00:39]] A: Yeah, a few times. It's pretty fun. Have you?\n[[00:36],[00:37]] A: I see.\n[[00:39],[00:47]] B: Yeah, it's one of my favorite places to go out. The music is always great and the atmosphere just makes it easy to have a good time.\n[[00:41],[00:43]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:47],[00:52]] A: And the people are super friendly, right? It makes the whole vibe so much better.\n[[00:53],[00:58]] B: Definitely! Well, it was nice meeting you, Kenadie! Maybe I'll see you around here sometime.\n[[00:58],[01:02]] A: Yeah, definitely! It was nice meeting you too, Derick!",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and coherence of the dialogue.\n- A initiates the conversation with a clear introduction and reason for approaching B.\n- B responds appropriately by introducing themself and asking a standard getting-to-know-you question (\"So what do you do?\").\n- The conversation continues logically, with each speaker answering the other's questions and then reciprocating. For example, A answers about being a student and asks B in return.\n- A demonstrates active listening by taking B's general statement about \"wanting to help\" and offering specific, relevant examples (\"social work or maybe healthcare\").\n- The topic shift from careers to their current location (the club) is handled smoothly by B and is a natural progression for a conversation in that setting.\n- The dialogue concludes with a polite and mutual closing.\nOverall, the responses are highly relevant, logically consistent, and the topic coherence is excellent throughout the interaction.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n- **Pauses:** I will check the timestamps between turns.\n - A ends at [00:05], B starts at [00:05]. (No pause)\n - B ends at [00:09], A starts at [00:10]. (1s pause, natural)\n - A ends at [00:15], B starts at [00:15]. (No pause)\n - A ends at [00:27], B starts at [00:27]. (No pause)\n - B ends at [00:34], A starts at [00:34]. (No pause)\n - A ends at [00:39], B starts at [00:39]. (No pause)\n - B ends at [00:47], A starts at [00:47]. (No pause)\n - A ends at [00:52], B starts at [00:53]. (1s pause, natural)\n - B ends at [00:58], A starts at [00:58]. (No pause)\n There are no prolonged or awkward pauses between turns. The pacing is smooth and conversational.\n\n- **Overlaps:**\n - There is a minor overlap where A's turn `[[00:21],[00:27]]` begins just before B's turn `[[00:15],[00:22]]` ends. This one-second overlap is very brief and typical of natural, engaged conversation, where one person starts to respond as the other is finishing their thought. It is not disruptive.\n - The other instances of overlapping speech (e.g., [[00:01],[00:02]], [[00:07],[00:08]]) are backchannels from the same speaker, which don't negatively impact the interactional flow between the two participants.\n - There are no extended, competitive overlaps.\n\nThe interaction is very fluent, with natural turn-taking and no harmful pauses or overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/233",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: I need to find a guesthouse with a 3 star rating\n[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Um.\n[[00:04],[00:08]] B: We have four such guesthouses. Do you have a preferred location?\n[[00:06],[00:07]] B: Uh.\n[[00:09],[00:12]] A: No, I don't. I want one that includes free wifi.\n[[00:10],[00:11]] A: Sure.\n[[00:14],[00:19]] B: Bridge Gue House, Hamilton Lodge, and Hobsons House are all available if you'd like one of those?\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:21],[00:24]] A: Please book the Hamilton Lodge, for 6 people.\n[[00:24],[00:31]] B: I'd be happy to. How many nights would you like to stay? And I'll need to know the day you would like to start your stay.\n[[00:28],[00:29]] B: Mm.\n[[00:33],[00:38]] A: I'll be staying 2 nights starting on wednesday. Oh, and there are 6 of us.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:39],[00:45]] B: I'm sorry, my reservation attempt was unsuccessful. Will another day or length of stay work?\n[[00:41],[00:42]] B: Right.\n[[00:46],[00:49]] A: Can you try the same parameters at another hotel?\n[[00:49],[00:55]] B: Of course, could you tell me the area you would like to stay in so I can narrow it for\n[[00:52],[00:53]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:55],[01:00]] A: The area does not matter, just three stars and wifi at a guesthouse please.\n[[00:57],[00:58]] A: Cool.\n[[01:02],[01:12]] B: I've got you a reservation for 6 at Hobson's House for 2 nights. Your reference number is 4WNGILMF.\n[[01:05],[01:06]] B: Uh huh.\n[[01:14],[01:17]] A: Thank you so much! That should be all I need.\n[[01:18],[01:21]] B: You're welcome. Enjoy your day.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user A's requests are consistently understood and addressed by user B. The dialogue follows a logical progression: A states an initial need, B asks for clarification, A provides more constraints, B offers options, A selects an option and provides booking details, B attempts to book, B reports a failure and suggests a path forward, A proposes an alternative, and B successfully completes the task. The one minor hiccup where B asks for the area again after A said it didn't matter is quickly resolved by A's clarification. Overall, the conversation is highly relevant and coherent.\n\n\n\nThe turn-taking in the dialogue is smooth and natural. The pauses between turns are all very brief (1-2 seconds), which contributes to a good conversational flow without feeling rushed or having awkward silences. There are no extended overlaps where speakers talk over each other. The short, internal overlaps listed are natural fillers (e.g., \"Um,\" \"Uh,\" \"Mm hmm\") that are part of a single speaker's turn and do not disrupt the interaction. The fluency is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/234",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:06]] A: Hi Trina. I'm Sabian. I'm a student in your class. I just wanted to say that I really enjoy your lectures and I'm learning a lot.\n[[00:03],[00:04]] A: Mm.\n[[00:07],[00:10]] B: Thank you, Sabian. I'm glad you're enjoying the class.\n[[00:09],[00:09]] B: Sure.\n[[00:12],[00:14]] A: I wanted to ask you a question about the homework.\n[[00:16],[00:19]] B: Sure, what's your\n[[00:18],[00:26]] A: Actually, it's about Question 3. I was wondering if we could discuss the answer in more detail. I'm not quite sure I understand it.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:22],[00:23]] A: Mm.\n[[00:26],[00:29]] B: Of course. Let's take a look at it together.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance.\n1. **A [00:00-00:06]**: A introduces themself and gives a compliment to the teacher, B. This is a logical and polite opening for a student-teacher conversation.\n2. **B [00:07-00:10]**: B thanks A and expresses happiness. This is a direct and appropriate response to A's compliment.\n3. **A [00:12-00:14]**: A transitions to the reason for the conversation, asking about homework. This is a coherent and expected topic shift.\n4. **B [00:16-00:19]**: B encourages A to ask the question. This is a relevant and supportive response.\n5. **A [00:18-00:26]**: A specifies the question and explains their difficulty. This is a direct follow-up to B's prompt.\n6. **B [00:26-00:29]**: B agrees to help. This is a relevant and helpful conclusion to the request.\nThe conversation follows a clear, logical path from introduction and pleasantries to a specific academic request. All responses are directly relevant to the preceding turns and maintain topic coherence.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses**:\n * There is a 1-second pause between A's opening and B's response ([00:06] to [00:07]).\n * There is a 2-second pause between B's response and A's next turn ([00:10] to [00:12]).\n * There is a 2-second pause between A's statement and B's response ([00:14] to [00:16]).\n All these pauses are brief and serve as natural turn-taking gaps. There are no prolonged or awkward silences.\n\n2. **Overlaps**:\n * The primary overlap occurs from [00:18] to [00:19]. Speaker A begins to state their specific question (\"Actually, it's about Question 3...\") while speaker B is still inviting the question (\"...what's your...\"). This is a brief, competitive overlap where A interrupts B. However, B yields the floor immediately, and the conversation proceeds smoothly. This kind of interruption is common and natural in conversation and does not disrupt the flow.\n * The other transcribed overlaps (e.g., [00:03], [00:09], [00:20]) are self-overlaps or backchannels within a single speaker's turn, which are not detrimental to the interactional fluency between the two speakers.\n\nThe interaction is fluid, with natural pacing and a minor, well-managed overlap.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/234",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Hey, Ricky. You doing okay?\n[[00:02],[00:05]] B: Yeah, I'm doing alright. Thanks for\n[[00:04],[00:09]] A: Sorry to interrupt, I noticed you were looking kind of down today and just wanted to check on you.\n[[00:06],[00:07]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:10],[00:12]] B: Yeah, I've just been feeling a bit down lately.\n[[00:13],[00:19]] A: I'm sorry to hear that. Is there anything I can do to help cheer you up or take your mind off things?\n[[00:16],[00:17]] A: I see.\n[[00:19],[00:26]] B: Actually, just talking to someone who cares helps a lot. Thank you for being here for me, Chyann.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:23],[00:24]] B: Mm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance. Speaker A starts by checking on Speaker B. Speaker B begins to answer, and Speaker A interrupts to provide more context for their concern. Speaker B then confirms they are feeling down. Speaker A follows up with a relevant offer of help. Speaker B's final response directly addresses A's offer, expressing gratitude. The conversation is logically consistent and stays on the single topic of checking on a friend's well-being.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is generally good, but there is a notable overlap.\n- **Pauses:** There are no prolonged pauses between turns. The 1-second gaps ([[00:01],[00:02]], [[00:09],[00:10]], [[00:12],[00:13]]) are all natural turn-taking pauses.\n- **Overlaps:** There is a significant overlap from [00:04] to [00:05] where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. However, Speaker A immediately apologizes (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), which is a natural conversational repair. This makes the interruption less jarring and more like an eager expression of concern. The other \"overlaps\" are instances of a speaker uttering backchannels over their own speech (e.g., A at [00:16], B at [00:21] and [00:23]), which does not disrupt the turn-taking flow between the two participants.\nGiven that the main interruption is handled well and there are no long pauses, the fluency is considered natural and appropriate for an informal, caring conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/235",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Scott, I know you're cheating on me.\n[[00:02],[00:06]] B: What? No, I'm not! I would never do that to you!\n[[00:03],[00:04]] B: Mm.\n[[00:06],[00:09]] A: Then why are you spending so much time with my best friend?\n[[00:07],[00:08]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:09],[00:12]] B: We're just friends, I\n[[00:11],[00:17]] A: Friends don't spend all their time together. And they certainly don't kiss each other like you two were doing the other day.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:17],[00:23]] B: It was just a mistake, I swear! Please forgive me, Graciela! I love you, I would never cheat on you!\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:21],[00:21]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:24],[00:30]] A: Scott, I don't believe you. You've been lying to me for weeks now and I want to know the truth. Who is she?\n[[00:25],[00:26]] A: Mm.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] A: Really.\n[[00:30],[00:34]] B: There's no one else, Graciela, I was just trying to sort things out in my head.\n[[00:32],[00:32]] B: Right.\n[[00:35],[00:38]] A: Then why can't you look me in the eye and tell me the truth?\n[[00:36],[00:37]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:39],[00:42]] B: Because... because I'm afraid of losing you.\n[[00:40],[00:40]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:42],[00:47]] A: So there is someone else. Who is she, Scott? Tell me the truth!\n[[00:48],[01:01]] B: Okay, okay... her name is Sarah and we met at work. We started talking and spending more time together and then one thing led to another... but it didn't mean anything, Graciela, I swear! It was just a fling, it meant nothing to me!\n[[01:01],[01:07]] A: But it meant something to me. You cheated on me with my best friend and that hurts more than anything.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the response relevance of the dialogue.\n\n1. **Initial Accusation and Denial:** Speaker A starts with a direct accusation: \"Scott, I know you're cheating on me.\" Speaker B's response is a direct and immediate denial: \"What? No, I'm not! I would never do that to you!\" This is a perfectly logical and coherent start to the conversation.\n2. **Presenting Evidence:** Speaker A follows up with a specific question based on an observation: \"Then why are you spending so much time with my best friend?\" This keeps the topic focused and demands an explanation.\n3. **Escalation and Confession:** Speaker B tries to downplay the situation (\"We're just friends\"), but A interrupts with more damning evidence (\"...they certainly don't kiss each other...\"). This forces B to change his story from a full denial to admitting a \"mistake\" while still trying to salvage the situation.\n4. **Pressing for Truth:** A doesn't accept the partial confession and continues to press for the full truth (\"Who is she?\").\n5. **Final Confession:** After a few more exchanges where B tries to evade the question, he finally breaks down and confesses everything (\"her name is Sarah...\").\n6. **Concluding Remark:** A's final line, \"You cheated on me with my best friend and that hurts more than anything,\" brings the conversation full circle, confirming her initial suspicion and expressing the emotional impact.\n\nOverall, the dialogue progresses in a very logical and consistent manner. Each turn is a direct and relevant reaction to the previous one, creating a coherent and believable narrative of an argument and confession.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, specifically looking for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:** I will check the timestamps for gaps between turns.\n * A ends at [00:01], B starts at [00:02]. No pause.\n * B ends at [00:06], A starts at [00:06]. No pause.\n * A ends at [00:09], B starts at [00:09]. No pause.\n * B's main utterance is cut off at [00:12] by A, who started at [00:11]. No pause.\n * The conversation continues with no noticeable gaps between the end of one speaker's turn and the start of the next. The flow is continuous.\n\n2. **Overlaps:** I will check the timestamps for overlapping speech.\n * `[[00:09],[00:12]] B: We're just friends, I` overlaps with `[[00:11],[00:17]] A: Friends don't spend all their time together...`. This is a one-second overlap where A interrupts B. In the context of a heated argument, this kind of interruption is very natural and demonstrates A's impatience and disbelief. It is not a flaw; it enhances the realism of the scene.\n * The other overlaps noted in the transcript (`Mm.`, `Ummm.`, `Okay,okay.`, etc.) are self-overlaps or backchannels spoken by the person who has the main speaking turn. These are also natural speech mannerisms and do not disrupt the flow of the conversation between the two speakers.\n\nConclusion: There are no long pauses. The one significant inter-speaker overlap is brief and contextually appropriate for an argument. The interactional fluency is excellent and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/236",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Hey, Francis. What's up?\n[[00:01],[00:04]] B: Not much. Just wondering why you didn't invite me to your party.\n[[00:02],[00:04]] B: I see.\n[[00:05],[00:07]] A: Oh, I didn't think you would be\n[[00:06],[00:08]] B: Why not? I thought we were friends.\n[[00:09],[00:19]] A: We are friends. I just didn't think you would want to come to a party where there would be a lot of people and noise and it might get a bit overwhelming for you.\n[[00:12],[00:13]] A: Really.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:19],[00:25]] B: I don't mind noise and crowds. I actually like parties. I'm disappointed that you didn't invite me.\n[[00:22],[00:23]] B: Um.\n[[00:26],[00:29]] A: I'm sorry, Francis. I'll make sure to invite you next time.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] A: I see.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation follows a very logical and coherent progression from start to finish. It begins with a standard greeting, but Speaker B immediately introduces a point of conflict (\"wondering why you didn't invite me to your party\"). Speaker A's response is a direct explanation for this, which is then logically countered by Speaker B who clarifies their preferences. The conversation concludes with Speaker A offering a sincere apology and a resolution. Each turn is directly relevant to the one preceding it, creating a clear and understandable narrative arc of a minor interpersonal conflict being resolved. The brief interjections like \"I see\" and \"Really\" function as natural backchannels, indicating that the listener is engaged and processing the information, which is appropriate for this type of emotional conversation.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency of the dialogue is excellent. There are a few instances of overlapping speech, but they are all natural and do not hinder the conversation. The overlap at [00:06]-[00:08] is a typical interruption where Speaker B, feeling emotional, cuts in to ask \"Why not?\". This is characteristic of a real, engaged conversation. The other brief overlaps are backchannels (\"I see\", \"Really\", \"Mm hmm\") which show active listening and are a normal part of conversational flow. Critically, there are no extended, disruptive overlaps where both speakers try to talk over each other for a long period, nor are there any long, awkward pauses between turns that would suggest a breakdown in communication. The rhythm is smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/237",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: How are you doing?\n[[00:01],[00:05]] B: I'm doing pretty well, thanks! I've been doing some research on the Crusades.\n[[00:02],[00:04]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:06],[00:10]] A: Wow! I'm reading this book on the Crusades and am learning so much.\n[[00:07],[00:08]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:10],[00:16]] B: The Crusades were so interesting. I wish I'd gone there for study abroad when I was in college.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Right.\n[[00:17],[00:22]] A: I know! I wish I went to Europe for study abroad as well. I had to\n[[00:19],[00:20]] A: Really.\n[[00:21],[00:25]] B: Oh, you did a virtual tour? How was that experience compared to actually being there?\n[[00:22],[00:23]] B: Uh.\n[[00:26],[00:35]] A: It was informative, but definitely not the same as being there in person. What a shame. I'm thinking of heading there this summer! What should I do?\n[[00:29],[00:29]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:30],[00:31]] A: Mm hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance and logical consistency. The conversation starts with a greeting and then smoothly transitions to a specific topic, the Crusades, which both speakers are interested in. The topic then naturally evolves from a historical interest into a related personal experience/desire (study abroad in Europe). Speaker B makes an assumption about Speaker A having done a \"virtual tour,\" which might seem like a non-sequitur, but Speaker A's subsequent turn confirms and answers this, showing the speakers are highly attuned to each other. The conversation concludes with Speaker A asking for travel advice, a logical progression from the previous turns. All responses are coherent and build upon what was previously said.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very high. There are no long pauses between turns; the transitions are smooth and immediate, typically with a one-second gap, which is natural. There are numerous instances of overlap, but they are all short, supportive backchannels (e.g., \"Uh huh,\" \"Right,\" \"Yeah, yeah\"). These brief overlaps demonstrate active listening and engagement from the non-speaking participant and contribute to the natural flow of the conversation rather than disrupting it. There are no extended, competitive overlaps where both speakers are trying to take the floor. The pacing is that of a natural, engaged conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/237",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:18]] A: These pajamas are so soft and comfortable, it's like being hugged by a cloud. They're also lightweight which makes them perfect for hot summer nights or lazy Sunday mornings. The simple design features a classic button-up top with long pants that reaches all the way down to the\n[[00:05],[00:06]] A: Right.\n[[00:07],[00:08]] A: Really.\n[[00:09],[00:09]] A: I see.\n[[00:17],[00:23]] B: Sorry to cut in, but do you think they come in different colors? I was thinking of getting a pair for myself.\n[[00:19],[00:21]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:23],[00:33]] A: I'm not sure, but I can check online. Anyway, the pants reach all the way down to the ankles. They're really nice. I'm glad you like them.\n[[00:26],[00:27]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:28],[00:29]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:34],[00:38]] B: I love them! They're so cozy and I feel like I could sleep for days in them.\n[[00:36],[00:37]] B: Cool.\n[[00:39],[00:48]] A: That's good to hear. I know you've been working really hard lately and you deserve a little pampering. Maybe a new pair of pajamas is just what you need.\n[[00:42],[00:43]] A: Really.\n[[00:44],[00:44]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:48],[00:54]] B: Speaking of hard work, have you thought about taking a short trip to relax? Maybe a weekend getaway?\n[[00:50],[00:51]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:54],[00:58]] A: Thank you, sweetheart. You always know how to make me feel better.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation starts with speaker A describing a pair of pajamas. Speaker B's interruption at [00:17] is directly relevant, as they ask a question about the pajamas (\"do you think they come in different colors?\"). Speaker A provides a direct answer and then smoothly transitions back to their original point. The topic shift later in the conversation, from discussing pampering to suggesting a trip [00:48], is also a logical and coherent progression based on the preceding context of \"hard work\". All turns are topically connected and follow a natural conversational flow.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long, awkward pauses between speaker turns; the transitions are swift and natural. There is one noticeable overlap from [00:17] to [00:18] where B begins speaking before A has finished. However, this is not a fluency issue; it's a natural interruption, and speaker B even apologizes for it (\"Sorry to cut in\"), which makes the interaction feel authentic. The other instances of overlapping speech are very brief backchannels (e.g., \"Mhm,\" \"Yeah, yeah,\" \"Cool\"), which indicate active listening and contribute positively to the conversational flow rather than disrupting it.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/242",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: Hey, Sarah. I've got some big news to share with you.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: I see.\n[[00:03],[00:06]] B: What is it? You sound pretty excited.\n[[00:06],[00:10]] A: I am! I've just been promoted to CEO of the company.\n[[00:08],[00:09]] A: Sure.\n[[00:10],[00:14]] B: Wow! That's amazing news, Bryanna. Congratulations!\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:15],[00:26]] A: Thanks, Sarah. I'm really excited about it. I'm confident that I can take the company in a new direction and make it even more successful than it has been in the\n[[00:19],[00:19]] A: Uh.\n[[00:25],[00:32]] B: Sorry to interrupt, but what new direction are you thinking of? Are there any specific changes you're planning to implement right away?\n[[00:27],[00:28]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: Cool.\n[[00:32],[00:50]] A: I'm considering several strategic initiatives, but I haven't finalized the details yet. One thing I know for sure is that I want to focus on innovation. By the way, I haven't mentioned the support from the board yet because they have been instrumental in shaping these new strategies.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] A: Mm.\n[[00:39],[00:41]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:42],[00:43]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:50],[00:57]] B: Speaking of support, how is the board reacting to your promotion? Are they fully backing your vision for the company?\n[[00:52],[00:53]] B: Cool.\n[[00:57],[01:05]] A: Yes, the board is very supportive and excited about my plans. It means a lot to me to have their backing as well as yours.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation begins with A sharing big news about a promotion. B's responses are consistently relevant, asking for details (\"What is it?\"), offering congratulations, and then asking a pertinent follow-up question about the \"new direction\" A mentioned. When A brings up the board's support, B logically pivots to ask about the board's reaction. Every turn directly builds upon or responds to the previous one, maintaining a clear and coherent topic throughout the interaction.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the speakers transition smoothly from one to the next. There is one noticeable overlap between [[00:25],[00:26]], where B interrupts A. However, this is handled naturally and politely, as B explicitly says, \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which is a common feature of engaged, enthusiastic conversation rather than a flaw. Other short utterances like \"I see\" or \"Sure\" are self-corrections or fillers within a speaker's own turn and do not disrupt the conversational flow between the two participants. The turn-taking is natural and fluid.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/242",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:05]] A: Hey, I noticed you were having some trouble starting your car earlier. Do you need any help?\n[[00:01],[00:03]] A: Really.\n[[00:05],[00:10]] B: Yeah, I appreciate it. I've been having a lot of trouble with it\n[[00:07],[00:08]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:09],[00:15]] A: Sorry to hear that. Have you noticed any specific issues, like strange noises or warning lights?\n[[00:12],[00:13]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:16],[00:20]] B: Mostly, it just won't start sometimes. No strange noises, though.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: I see.\n[[00:20],[00:26]] A: It looks like your battery might be the issue. Have you had it checked by a mechanic recently?\n[[00:23],[00:24]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:26],[00:33]] B: Actually, now that you mention it, I did notice the lights dimming a bit last night. Could that be related?\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:33],[00:40]] A: Yes, dimming lights can definitely be a sign of a weak battery. Let me see if I can give you a jump start and see if that helps.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:37],[00:37]] A: Right.\n[[00:40],[00:42]] B: Thank you so much, Dade!\n[[00:42],[00:46]] A: Sure thing. Just let me grab my jumper cables from my car real quick.\n[[00:43],[00:45]] A: Cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation follows a logical and coherent problem-solving structure. Speaker A initiates by offering help for a specific problem (car not starting), and each subsequent turn from both speakers directly addresses this issue. Speaker A asks relevant diagnostic questions (\"any specific issues, like strange noises or warning lights?\"), and Speaker B provides on-topic answers (\"it just won't start sometimes\"). The conversation progresses naturally from identifying the problem, to hypothesizing a cause (the battery), confirming it with more evidence (dimming lights), and proposing a solution (a jump start). All exchanges are directly related and contribute to the conversational goal.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns. The transition from Speaker A to Speaker B at 00:05 is seamless. There is a very brief, one-second overlap between 00:09 and 00:10, where Speaker A begins speaking just before Speaker B finishes. This type of short overlap is very common in natural conversation and does not hinder communication. The one-second pause between 00:15 and 00:16 is also natural and brief. The rest of the turn-taking is immediate and smooth. The numerous short utterances listed for a single speaker (e.g., A's \"Really.\" from [00:01] to [00:03] overlapping their own main utterance) appear to be backchannels or self-corrections transcribed separately, but they do not represent a fluency issue between the two interlocutors. Overall, the flow is natural and efficient.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_process_HH_1/extracted_dialogues_girl_man/242",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: I'm sorry.\n[[00:01],[00:03]] B: I know you are, dear.\n[[00:05],[00:07]] A: I just wish things had been different.\n[[00:08],[00:12]] B: Well, sometimes we don't always get what we want in life.\n[[00:10],[00:11]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:12],[00:16]] A: I know that. But it doesn't make it any easier to\n[[00:14],[00:15]] A: Really.\n[[00:16],[00:22]] B: Accepting it is tough, I understand. But have you considered talking to Anelne about how you feel?\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Really.\n[[00:23],[00:31]] A: No, it doesn't. But you have to remember that Anelne is her own person and she has a right to make her own choices in life.\n[[00:26],[00:28]] A: Um.\n[[00:32],[00:39]] B: I know that too. But it's just hard to see her with someone else when I know that I love her so much.\n[[00:35],[00:37]] B: Really.\n[[00:40],[00:45]] A: Anel, you have to trust that if it's meant to be, then things will fall into place eventually.\n[[00:43],[00:43]] A: Sure.\n[[00:46],[00:52]] B: Work out in the end, yes. But what if she never realizes how I truly feel?\n[[00:48],[00:49]] B: Really.\n[[00:53],[00:59]] A: Thanks, Anne. You've always been like a second mother to me and I really appreciate your words of wisdom right now.\n[[00:56],[00:57]] A: That's cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains a consistent topic and emotional tone throughout. The conversation centers on navigating feelings of loss or regret regarding a relationship with someone named \"Anelne\". The speakers' turns are logically connected and coherent within this emotional context. For example, B's philosophical advice, \"sometimes we don't always get what we want in life,\" is a direct and relevant response to A's expression of wishing things were different. While the roles of who is consoling whom seem to shift, this can be interpreted as a natural dynamic between two close individuals sharing a mutual problem and offering reciprocal support. The final turn from A, thanking B, serves as a fitting conclusion to the supportive exchange, referencing the overall value of the conversation rather than just the immediately preceding line. All responses remain on topic and are logically consistent within the framework of a supportive, emotional conversation.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency of the dialogue is excellent. The turn-taking is smooth, with no long pauses between speakers that would indicate hesitation or disrupt the flow. The pauses that do exist are brief (1-2 seconds) and feel natural in a conversation of this nature. The transcript notes several overlaps, but these are brief, single-word interjections (e.g., \"Really,\" \"Sure\") where a speaker overlaps with their own primary utterance. There are no instances of extended, competitive overlapping where speakers talk over each other, ensuring the conversation remains clear and easy to follow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/244",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:03]] A: Hello, I am Azlan and I am here to request help from the government.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:03],[00:07]] B: Azlan, it is nice to meet you. What can we do for you?\n[[00:05],[00:06]] B: Really.\n[[00:07],[00:16]] A: I am working on a project that is very important to me, but I need some resources in order to continue. I was hoping the government could help me\n[[00:10],[00:11]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:12],[00:12]] A: Right.\n[[00:15],[00:21]] B: Could you specify what kind of resources you are looking for? It would help us understand your needs better.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Right.\n[[00:21],[00:26]] A: I need financial assistance and some other resources that would help me complete my project.\n[[00:23],[00:24]] A: Right.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] B: What is your project?\n[[00:29],[00:31]] A: I am working on a way to improve the world.\n[[00:31],[00:40]] B: That sounds like a very noble goal. I'm sure we can help you out. Let me get the paperwork started and gather more details about your project proposal.\n[[00:34],[00:35]] B: Sure.\n[[00:35],[00:37]] B: Cool.\n[[00:40],[00:50]] A: Before we proceed with the paperwork, could you explain what specific areas of the world you are aiming to improve? This might help us tailor our support more effectively.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:45],[00:46]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:51],[00:58]] B: Certainly, I haven't gone into the details yet. My project focuses on sustainable energy solutions for underdeveloped regions.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains topic coherence from start to finish. Speaker A introduces a need for government assistance for a project, and Speaker B engages appropriately by asking clarifying questions (\"What can we do for you?\", \"Could you specify what kind of resources you are looking for?\", \"What is your project?\"). Each turn is a logical response to the previous one. While the exchange from [00:40] onwards seems to have a role confusion, it can be interpreted as Speaker A asking Speaker B to summarize their understanding of the project's goal to ensure alignment before filling out paperwork. Speaker B's response then serves as this summary. Under this interpretation, the conversation remains logically consistent.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long or awkward pauses between speaker turns, which keeps the conversation flowing at a natural pace. The few overlaps that occur are extremely brief and function as backchannels or affirmations (e.g., \"Really,\" \"Right,\" \"Sure\"). These short interjections do not interrupt or talk over the main speaker in a disruptive way; instead, they signal engagement. According to the evaluation criteria, brief overlaps are acceptable and do not harm the quality of the interaction. The turn-taking is smooth and efficient.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/247",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:00]] A: Hey, Mom.\n[[00:01],[00:03]] B: Hey, Sumer. How are you doing?\n[[00:03],[00:05]] A: I'm fine. Just bored.\n[[00:06],[00:07]] B: What do you want to\n[[00:06],[00:09]] A: I just don't know. Something fun.\n[[00:09],[00:12]] B: Well, why don't we go outside and play catch or something?\n[[00:12],[00:15]] A: That's so boring. I don't want to do that.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Well, what do you want to do then?\n[[00:18],[00:20]] A: I don't know...something exciting!\n[[00:20],[00:24]] B: Your life isn't exciting enough for you to find something fun on your own?\n[[00:21],[00:22]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:24],[00:27]] A: No! It's so boring here. There's nothing to do!\n[[00:25],[00:26]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:28],[00:33]] B: Maybe if you stop complaining and look for things to do, your life will be more exciting.\n[[00:30],[00:30]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:33],[00:37]] A: But there's nothing to DO! That's the whole problem!\n[[00:34],[00:35]] A: Sure.\n[[00:37],[00:41]] B: Maybe if you try something new, you'll find something that interests you.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:41],[00:45]] A: Fine. But I doubt it'll be anything good.\n[[00:43],[00:43]] A: Okay,okay.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants an evaluation of a dialogue transcript based on Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n- The dialogue follows a clear and logical progression. Speaker A (a child) expresses boredom.\n- Speaker B (a parent) tries to help by suggesting an activity.\n- Speaker A rejects the suggestion and maintains a whiny, bored tone.\n- Speaker B becomes slightly exasperated but continues to offer advice.\n- Each turn is a direct and coherent response to the previous one. For example, when B suggests playing catch, A's response \"That's so boring\" is directly relevant. When B asks what A wants to do, A's response \"something exciting!\" is also directly relevant.\n- The topic of finding something to do for the bored child is maintained throughout the entire conversation.\n- The dialogue is logically consistent and coherent.\n\n**Conclusion for Response Relevance:** The responses are highly relevant, logically consistent, and maintain topic coherence. This aspect is excellent.\n\n\n\nThe user wants an evaluation of a dialogue transcript based on Response Relevance and Interactional Fluency.\n\n**Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\n- I will check for long pauses and extended overlaps.\n- **Pauses:** There are no significant pauses between turns. The longest gap is one second (e.g., between [00:05] and [00:06], [00:17] and [00:18]), which is a natural conversational pause. The turn-taking is generally quick and smooth.\n- **Overlaps:**\n - `[[00:06],[00:07]] B` overlaps with `[[00:06],[00:09]] A`. Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. This is a common feature in natural, emotive conversation (an impatient child interrupting a parent) and does not significantly disrupt the flow.\n - The other listed overlaps (`[[00:13],[00:14]]`, `[[00:21],[00:22]]`, `[[00:25],[00:26]]`, etc.) are very brief, single-word filler utterances (\"Ummm\", \"Uh huh\", \"Sure\") that overlap with the same speaker's main sentence. These are typical of natural speech and do not harm fluency. They are not extended, disruptive overlaps between two different speakers trying to take the floor.\n\n**Conclusion for Interactional Fluency:** The conversation flows naturally. There are no awkward, long pauses. The overlaps are brief and characteristic of a natural, dynamic interaction rather than being disruptive. This aspect is excellent.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/252",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: So, what do you think of my banquet?\n[[00:02],[00:06]] B: It's very impressive, Chyna. You have certainly outdone yourself.\n[[00:04],[00:04]] B: Sure.\n[[00:06],[00:12]] A: I'm glad you like it. I wanted to show everyone that I am a successful\n[[00:10],[00:10]] A: Um.\n[[00:11],[00:17]] B: Sorry, Chyna, just curious—how much did this whole event cost you? I mean, it's truly extravagant.\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: Mm.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] B: Really.\n[[00:18],[00:26]] A: Money is no object when it comes to entertaining my guests. I want them to enjoy themselves and remember this night for a long time.\n[[00:20],[00:21]] A: I see.\n[[00:22],[00:22]] A: Really.\n[[00:26],[00:32]] B: They will definitely remember it. It's not often that we get to experience such luxury.\n[[00:29],[00:30]] B: I see.\n[[00:32],[00:43]] A: I want to make sure that my guests are always comfortable and happy. That's why I only invite the best of the crowd to my events, ensuring that everyone has a great time.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] A: Really.\n[[00:44],[00:49]] B: Speaking of the best, have you noticed how everyone is buzzing about the catering? The food is exceptional.\n[[00:46],[00:46]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:50],[00:57]] A: Yes, I made sure to hire the most renowned chefs. As I was saying, I only invite the best of the best to my events.\n[[00:52],[00:53]] A: Really.\n[[00:58],[01:04]] B: You are certainly doing that. I'm sure your guests will be talking about this night for weeks to come.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains a high level of relevance and coherence. Speaker B's initial response directly answers A's question about the banquet. Speaker A then elaborates on their motivation, and Speaker B's subsequent question about the cost, while direct, is a relevant follow-up given the acknowledged extravagance. The conversation continues to revolve around the high quality of the event, with A emphasizing guest experience and B highlighting specific elements like the food. Each turn logically follows the previous one, and the speakers build upon each other's points, keeping the conversation focused and consistent.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long, awkward pauses between turns; the speakers respond to each other promptly, creating a natural conversational rhythm. There is one notable overlap where B interrupts A around the [[00:11]] mark. However, this interruption feels natural in the context of B's curiosity and doesn't disrupt the overall flow, as A yields the floor smoothly. The other minor overlaps noted in the transcript are self-corrections or backchannels from the speaker during their own turn, which do not negatively impact the interaction between the two participants. The turn-taking is otherwise smooth and effective.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/254",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hey, Sarah. I wanted to ask you something.\n[[00:02],[00:04]] B: Sure, Jet. What's up?\n[[00:04],[00:10]] A: Do you ever feel guilty when you accidentally damage something that doesn't belong to you?\n[[00:06],[00:08]] A: Right.\n[[00:10],[00:20]] B: Oh, absolutely. I think anyone would feel guilty in that situation. No one likes causing damage, whether it's on purpose or\n[[00:13],[00:14]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:19],[00:29]] A: Actually, I wanted to share an incident that happened to me recently. I accidentally knocked over a vase at a friend's house, and I can't stop thinking about it.\n[[00:22],[00:23]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:24],[00:26]] A: Cool.\n[[00:29],[00:34]] B: Oh no, that sounds stressful. Did you tell your friend about it?\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:34],[00:44]] A: Yes, I did. They were very understanding, but I still feel bad. Even if it's just a tiny thing, I can't help but feel bad about it.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] A: Uh.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:44],[00:46]] B: Why do you think that is?\n[[00:46],[00:56]] A: Well, I guess I just don't want to be responsible for causing any damage. It feels like it's my responsibility to take care of things, even if they don't belong to me.\n[[00:49],[00:50]] A: Cool.\n[[00:51],[00:52]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:57],[01:11]] B: That makes sense. I think a lot of people feel that way. We're taught from a young age not to damage property, so it's only natural that we would feel guilty when we accidentally break something, especially if it has sentimental value.\n[[01:12],[01:19]] A: Right, and I think it also has to do with not wanting to disappoint or inconvenience others. Thanks for talking to me about this, Sarah.\n[[01:19],[01:21]] B: No problem, Jet. Anytime!",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for Response Relevance. I will analyze the conversation turn by turn to check for logical consistency and topic coherence.\n\n1. **A's opener ([00:00]-[00:04])**: A introduces the topic of feeling guilty for damaging something that isn't theirs. This is a clear and direct start to the conversation.\n2. **B's response ([00:02]-[00:04], [00:10]-[00:20])**: B immediately agrees and validates A's feeling, stating it's a common experience. This is a relevant and supportive response that keeps the conversation on track.\n3. **A's follow-up ([00:19]-[00:29])**: A provides a specific, personal example (breaking a vase) that directly relates to the initial question. This deepens the conversation and makes it more personal.\n4. **B's response ([00:29]-[00:34])**: B shows empathy (\"Oh no, that sounds stressful\") and asks a logical follow-up question (\"Did you tell your friend about it?\"). This is a perfect response that is both relevant and encourages A to share more.\n5. **A's explanation ([00:34]-[00:44])**: A answers B's question and elaborates on the persistent feeling of guilt, which is the core topic. The response is coherent and consistent.\n6. **B's question ([00:44]-[00:46])**: B asks \"Why do you think that is?\", a thoughtful, open-ended question that prompts A to reflect further on the topic.\n7. **A's reflection ([00:46]-[00:56])**: A connects the feeling to a sense of responsibility, which is a logical and relevant explanation.\n8. **B's analysis ([00:57]-[01:11])**: B validates A's feelings (\"That makes sense\") and offers a broader psychological explanation (childhood conditioning, sentimental value), which adds depth and perspective to the conversation.\n9. **A's conclusion ([01:12]-[01:19])**: A agrees and adds another relevant point (not wanting to disappoint others), then smoothly concludes the discussion.\n\nOverall, the dialogue is exceptionally coherent. Both speakers stay on topic, build upon each other's contributions, and engage in a logical, empathetic exchange. The responses are consistently relevant.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for Interactional Fluency, specifically looking for extended overlaps and long pauses between turns.\n\n**Pauses:**\n- [[00:02]] A ends, [[00:02]] B starts: No pause.\n- [[00:04]] B ends, [[00:04]] A starts: No pause.\n- [[00:10]] A ends, [[00:10]] B starts: No pause.\n- [[00:20]] B ends, [[00:19]] A starts: A one-second overlap, which is a natural start to a turn and not disruptive.\n- [[00:29]] A ends, [[00:29]] B starts: No pause.\n- [[00:34]] B ends, [[00:34]] A starts: No pause.\n- [[00:44]] A ends, [[00:44]] B starts: No pause.\n- [[00:46]] B ends, [[00:46]] A starts: No pause.\n- [[00:56]] A ends, [[00:57]] B starts: A brief, one-second pause. This is a natural, conversational pause and not considered harmful.\n- [[01:11]] B ends, [[01:12]] A starts: A brief, one-second pause. This is also completely natural.\n- [[01:19]] A ends, [[01:19]] B starts: No pause.\nThere are no long or awkward pauses in the dialogue. The turn-taking is smooth.\n\n**Overlaps:**\nThe transcript shows several instances of brief utterances occurring during a longer turn (e.g., [00:06]-[00:08], [00:13]-[00:14], [00:22]-[00:23]). Although the transcript incorrectly attributes these to the main speaker, they function as backchannels from the listener (e.g., \"Right,\" \"Uh huh,\" \"Hmm\"). These are very short (1-2 seconds) and are signs of active listening, not harmful interruptions. They contribute positively to the conversational flow by showing engagement. There are no extended, competitive overlaps where speakers talk over each other.\n\nThe interactional flow is natural and smooth, with appropriate turn-taking and no detrimental pauses or overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/255",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: I don't want to feel that way anymore.\n[[00:02],[00:04]] B: What can I do to\n[[00:03],[00:04]] A: I'm going for a run.\n[[00:05],[00:09]] B: Okay, I'll go with you if you want some company, but I understand if you need space.\n[[00:06],[00:07]] B: I see.\n[[00:09],[00:12]] A: No, I need to do this alone.\n[[00:12],[00:13]] B: Are you sure?\n[[00:13],[00:14]] A: Yes, I'm sure.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining a coherent and focused conversation. Speaker A starts by expressing an emotional state (\"I don't want to feel that way anymore\") and a decision (\"I'm going for a run\"). Speaker B's responses are consistently supportive and relevant, first offering help (\"What can I do...\"), then offering company while respecting A's need for space (\"I'll go with you... but I understand if you need space\"). The subsequent exchange where A declines the offer and B seeks confirmation is also perfectly logical and consistent with the situation. The entire conversation is on-topic and flows naturally.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There is a brief, one-second overlap between [[00:03],[00:04]] where speaker A interrupts speaker B. This type of short overlap is very natural in human conversation, especially when one person (A) is firm in their decision and speaks over the other's offer of help. It is not a prolonged or disruptive overlap. There are no long or awkward pauses between turns; the turn-taking is quick and efficient, as seen in the immediate responses from [[00:09]] onwards. The one-second pause between [[00:04]] and [[00:05]] is a natural moment for B to process A's statement and formulate a thoughtful reply. Overall, the flow is smooth and realistic.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/257",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: So, what's the verdict?\n[[00:01],[00:14]] B: Well, your blood pressure is a little high and your blood test showed that you have some elevated levels of cholesterol. I'm going to recommend that you make some lifestyle changes and come back in six weeks for another check-\n[[00:05],[00:07]] B: Right.\n[[00:08],[00:08]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:09],[00:10]] B: Mm.\n[[00:13],[00:16]] A: Lifestyle changes? What do you mean?\n[[00:16],[00:26]] B: Well, eating a healthier diet and getting more exercise are two big things. You might also want to consider quitting smoking if you haven't already.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: I see.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:26],[00:31]] A: Yeah, I've been meaning to quit for a while now. I just haven't had much success with it.\n[[00:28],[00:29]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:32],[00:45]] B: There are many resources available to help people quit smoking, so don't hesitate to reach out for help if you need it. In the meantime, try to cut back as much as possible. Every little bit of effort counts towards improving your health.\n[[00:36],[00:36]] B: Really.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] B: Sure.\n[[00:46],[00:54]] A: Sorry to cut in, but when you mentioned coming back in six weeks, should I schedule that appointment now or wait until I've made some progress?\n[[00:48],[00:49]] A: Uh.\n[[00:55],[01:01]] B: You can schedule it now to ensure you get a slot that works for you. And remember, every little bit helps.\n[[01:01],[01:06]] A: Alright, well I'll definitely try to do all of those things. Thank you for the advice.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue follows a logical and coherent sequence typical of a medical consultation. Speaker A begins by asking for results (\"what's the verdict?\"). Speaker B provides the results and a recommendation, which is a direct and relevant response. Speaker A then asks for clarification on \"lifestyle changes,\" and B provides specific, relevant examples. The conversation continues to be coherent as A discusses their difficulty with quitting smoking, and B offers encouragement and resources. A's question about scheduling the follow-up appointment is also relevant and logically placed. Every turn is a direct and appropriate response to the previous one, maintaining a consistent topic throughout.\n\n\n\nThe interactional flow between the two speakers is smooth and natural. There are no long pauses between turns; the gaps are either non-existent or a natural one second long. There is one very brief, one-second overlap from [[00:13] to [00:14]] where Speaker A begins their question just as Speaker B is finishing their sentence. This is a common and natural feature of conversation and is not disruptive. The transcript contains some unusual artifacts where a speaker is listed as having multiple simultaneous utterances (e.g., B's main turn from [00:01] to [00:14] and also saying \"Right.\" from [00:05] to [00:07]). However, these appear to be transcription errors rather than issues with the interactional fluency between the two participants. The core turn-taking is excellent, without any harmful extended overlaps or awkward silences.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/263",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: Hey, I'm considering having some work done on the exterior of our house.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:04],[00:08]] B: It's a huge project! How much are you thinking?\n[[00:05],[00:06]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:08],[00:14]] A: How much do you think it will cost to add a veranda onto the front of our house?\n[[00:11],[00:12]] A: Uh.\n[[00:14],[00:19]] B: I have no idea. I've never done work like this before! What's the project?\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Really.\n[[00:20],[00:26]] A: I think we'll need to build a gazebo, attach it to the front of the house, and install French\n[[00:22],[00:23]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:25],[00:34]] B: Wait, before you get into more details, have you checked with the local regulations? Sometimes there are restrictions on adding structures like gazebos.\n[[00:30],[00:31]] B: Right.\n[[00:34],[00:42]] A: That's a good point. I should look into that. But as I was saying, we also want to install French doors. We're getting started with this now.\n[[00:37],[00:37]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:39],[00:39]] A: Um.\n[[00:43],[00:46]] B: How's that going? I think you should put the patio work on hold.\n[[00:44],[00:45]] B: Cool.\n[[00:47],[00:51]] A: What do you mean? The carpenter says he can start this project now!\n[[00:49],[00:49]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:51],[00:57]] B: I just feel like you're rushing into this without doing some planning. Do you have all the materials you need?",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A introduces the topic of exterior house work, and Speaker B responds appropriately by asking for more details about the scope and cost. A then specifies the project (veranda, gazebo, French doors). B's responses are not only relevant but also add value to the conversation, for example, by raising the important point about local regulations. A acknowledges this point and then continues with their description. The conversation follows a logical path, with each turn building upon the previous one. There are no instances of topic deviation or illogical replies.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, awkward pauses between speaker turns, indicating a smooth and natural conversational rhythm. The turn-taking is swift and responsive. There is a notable overlap starting at [00:25] where B interjects while A is speaking. However, this is a functional and natural interruption (\"Wait, before you get into more details...\") used to introduce a critical point. It is not a disruptive or competitive overlap that harms the flow; rather, it's a common feature of engaged, natural conversation. Other brief transcribed sounds (\"Mhm,\" \"Uh,\" \"Ummm\") are typical backchannels or fillers and do not impede fluency.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/265",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:05]] A: Hi! I'm so glad we finally get to meet in person. I've heard so much about you!\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: I see.\n[[00:05],[00:09]] B: Yeah, same here. It's nice to finally put a face to the name.\n[[00:06],[00:07]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:09],[00:14]] A: So, what do you think of our city so far? Have you had a chance to explore\n[[00:11],[00:11]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:13],[00:20]] B: Sorry to cut in, but I'm really curious—what's your favorite spot in the city? I could use some local recommendations.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] B: Um.\n[[00:21],[00:33]] A: Oh, that's a tough one! There are so many great places. I love the downtown area, especially the old market square. But I was asking if you've had a chance to explore much yourself?\n[[00:25],[00:26]] A: Cool.\n[[00:33],[00:40]] B: Yeah, I've been able to check out a few things. I really like it here. It's very different from where I'm from, but in a good way.\n[[00:35],[00:36]] B: Uh.\n[[00:37],[00:37]] B: Right.\n[[00:40],[00:49]] A: That's great! I'm so happy you're enjoying your time here. We have to make sure you get to see some of the beautiful parks and maybe even catch a local festival.\n[[00:43],[00:44]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:45],[00:45]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:50],[00:55]] B: Absolutely, I can't wait. By the way, is there any must-try food that I shouldn't miss out on?\n[[00:56],[01:02]] A: Definitely. I would love that. And yes, you have to try the local seafood; it's amazing!",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for response relevance.\n\n1. **[00:00]-[00:09]**: The conversation starts with A and B expressing pleasure at meeting each other. The responses are directly relevant and appropriate for an initial greeting.\n2. **[00:09]-[00:20]**: A asks B about their impression of the city. B interrupts (politely, \"Sorry to cut in\") to ask a related question about A's favorite spot. While an interruption, B's question is highly relevant to the topic of exploring the city and serves to gather local recommendations. This is a common and logical conversational move.\n3. **[00:21]-[00:33]**: A responds directly to B's question by naming a spot (\"the old market square\") and then skillfully transitions back to their original question (\"But I was asking if you've had a chance to explore...?\"). This shows excellent topic management and coherence.\n4. **[00:33]-[00:40]**: B answers A's re-asked question, confirming they have explored a bit and like the city. This is a perfectly relevant response.\n5. **[00:40]-[01:02]**: The conversation continues logically. A suggests more activities, B agrees and asks for food recommendations, and A provides one. Each turn is a logical and coherent follow-up to the previous one.\n\nOverall, the dialogue is thematically consistent and logically structured. The participants stick to the main topic of getting to know each other and the city, and they manage topic shifts and interruptions smoothly.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the dialogue for interactional fluency, focusing on disruptive overlaps and long pauses.\n\n1. **Overlaps**:\n * There is a slight overlap between A's turn ending at [00:05] and B's starting at [00:05]. This is a seamless and natural turn transition, not a disruption.\n * There is a one-second overlap between A's turn [[00:09],[00:14]] and B's turn [[00:13],[00:20]]. However, B explicitly acknowledges this by saying, \"Sorry to cut in,\" which makes the interruption socially acceptable and not a fluency error. It indicates enthusiastic engagement rather than a technical issue.\n * The short interjections like \"I see\" or \"Mm hmm\" are typical backchanneling cues that signal active listening and do not disrupt the speaker's flow. They are very brief.\n\n2. **Pauses**:\n * The gap between B's turn ending at [00:09] and A's starting at [00:09] is non-existent.\n * The gap between A's turn ending at [00:33] and B's starting at [00:33] is non-existent.\n * The gap between B's turn ending at [00:40] and A's starting at [00:40] is non-existent.\n * There is a one-second pause between A's turn ending at [00:49] and B's starting at [00:50], and another one-second pause between B's turn ending at [00:55] and A's starting at [00:56]. These short pauses are perfectly natural in conversation and do not indicate any fluency problems.\n\nThe interaction flows smoothly and naturally. There are no extended, disruptive overlaps or long, awkward pauses. The turn-taking is fluid and resembles a natural, engaging conversation.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_girlgirl_300/extracted_dialogues_girlgirl/267",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: Thanks for being honest with me, Cutler. I really appreciate it.\n[[00:01],[00:03]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:05],[00:13]] B: Of course! I just want you to be happy and confident in your decisions. You know I only have your best interests at\n[[00:07],[00:08]] B: Cool.\n[[00:09],[00:09]] B: Um.\n[[00:12],[00:19]] A: Sorry to cut in, but I just realized—what if my boss doesn't take it well? I mean, what if it backfires?\n[[00:15],[00:15]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:19],[00:35]] B: That's a valid concern, but remember, it's better to address things directly. If you approach it calmly and professionally, it's more likely to lead to a positive outcome. I'm glad I have you as a friend. Sometimes I need someone to help me see things more clearly.\n[[00:24],[00:25]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:26],[00:27]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:28],[00:29]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:35],[00:42]] A: I'm happy to help out however I can. So, do you think you're going to take my advice and talk to your boss about the situation?\n[[00:37],[00:38]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:39],[00:40]] A: Um.\n[[00:43],[00:56]] B: Yeah, I think so. It's the best thing to do at this point. And like you said, it's better to get everything out in the open rather than keep guessing what might happen if I don't say anything. Thanks for giving me that perspective, Cutler.\n[[00:47],[00:48]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:57],[01:01]] A: You're welcome. I'm just glad I could help. Let me know how it goes, okay?\n[[01:01],[01:03]] B: I will. Thanks again.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue maintains strong response relevance and topic coherence throughout. The conversation begins with speaker A thanking speaker B (Cutler) for advice regarding a situation, likely with A's boss. B's responses are supportive and directly address A's follow-up concerns ([[00:05]-[00:13]], [[00:19]-[00:35]]). At [[00:35]], the topic pivots. A asks B if they are going to take A's advice on a different matter. This indicates that the two speakers are engaged in a conversation involving mutual support and advice-giving on separate issues. This kind of multi-threaded discussion is common and logical in a conversation between friends. The responses from both speakers remain consistently relevant to the topic at hand, whether it's A's issue or B's. The fact that B also calls A \"Cutler\" at the end ([[00:43]-[00:56]]) appears to be a minor inconsistency or transcription error, but it doesn't break the overall logical flow of a reciprocal, supportive conversation.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency of the dialogue is excellent and sounds very natural. The turn-taking is smooth, with no long, disruptive pauses between speakers. There is a brief, one-second overlap at [[00:12]-[00:13]] where A interrupts B, but this is handled in a very naturalistic way, with A explicitly saying, \"Sorry to cut in,\" which is a common conversational repair mechanism. The numerous short utterances like \"Uh huh\" and \"Yeah, yeah\" act as backchannels, showing active listening and engagement without disrupting the speaker's flow. These elements contribute to a natural and fluent conversational rhythm rather than detracting from it.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/270",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:04]] A: I'm sorry, boss. I didn't mean to miss work. It won't happen again.\n[[00:01],[00:02]] A: Really.\n[[00:04],[00:10]] B: Martel, you've been working here for six months and this is the third time you've called in sick or just not shown\n[[00:06],[00:07]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:08],[00:08]] B: Really.\n[[00:09],[00:12]] A: I know, boss. I'm sorry. I'll do better.\n[[00:13],[00:17]] B: Sorry isn't good enough. I'm afraid you're going to have to find another job.\n[[00:15],[00:16]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:17],[00:22]] A: But, boss, please give me another chance! I really need this job!\n[[00:19],[00:20]] A: Uh.\n[[00:23],[00:33]] B: Martel, I'm sorry. But like I said, you've been irresponsible and this is the third time you've called in sick or just not shown up for work without any notice. You're fired.\n[[00:26],[00:27]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:29],[00:29]] B: Hmm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue presents a conversation between an employee (A) and their boss (B). The responses are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A starts with an apology for missing work. Speaker B responds directly by stating this is a recurring problem, providing context and justification for their frustration. Speaker A acknowledges this and apologizes again. Speaker B then escalates the situation by firing the employee, which is a logical consequence of the previous statement. Speaker A's plea for another chance is a natural and relevant reaction to being fired. Speaker B's final statement reiterates the reason for the termination, maintaining topic coherence and bringing the conversation to a logical close. The dialogue follows a clear and believable progression from apology to termination.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, disruptive pauses between turns. The gaps are brief and natural, such as the one-second pause between A's turn ending at [00:12] and B's starting at [00:13]. The overlaps that occur are minor and typical of natural conversation. For example, Speaker A begins speaking at [00:09] slightly before Speaker B finishes at [00:10]. This brief overlap contributes to the sense of a real-time, dynamic conversation rather than disrupting it. There are no instances of speakers talking over each other for extended periods. The turn-taking is smooth and efficient, creating a natural conversational flow.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/278",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hey, mom! I got my new phone today.\n[[00:03],[00:04]] B: Hey, baby! How are you?\n[[00:05],[00:06]] A: I'm good. How are you?\n[[00:07],[00:10]] B: I'm good. Your father and I were just talking about\n[[00:08],[00:09]] B: Really.\n[[00:10],[00:13]] A: Oh? What were you talking about? Is it something important?\n[[00:11],[00:12]] A: That's cool.\n[[00:13],[00:21]] B: We were just saying how proud we are of you and how well you're doing in school. Your father even said that he's thinking about getting you a car for your birthday.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: Mm.\n[[00:18],[00:19]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:22],[00:28]] A: Wow! Really? That would be awesome! Thanks, mom and dad!\n[[00:24],[00:25]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:28],[00:34]] B: You're welcome, baby. We just want you to be happy and make sure you have everything you need to succeed.\n[[00:31],[00:32]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:34],[00:37]] A: Speaking of happy, mom, can I ask you something?\n[[00:35],[00:36]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:37],[00:39]] B: Sure, what is it?\n[[00:39],[00:43]] A: What do you think about me going to the prom with my girlfriend?\n[[00:41],[00:42]] A: Sure.\n[[00:43],[00:51]] B: Well, I think it's up to you and your father. But, I don't see why not. Just be sure to be respectful and have a good time.\n[[00:46],[00:46]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:47],[00:48]] B: Uh huh.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation begins with a standard greeting exchange and then flows logically. Speaker B transitions from the initial greeting to a related, positive topic about being proud of Speaker A and a potential gift, which is a natural topic for a parent-child conversation. Speaker A's response is appropriately enthusiastic. The subsequent topic shift by Speaker A (\"Speaking of happy...\") is well-executed and connects the feeling of happiness from the previous topic to the new one (asking to go to prom). Speaker B's response to the prom question is thoughtful and relevant, offering parental advice. Every turn is a logical and coherent continuation of the previous one.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long, awkward pauses between speaker turns; the transitions are smooth and immediate, which is typical of an engaged conversation. While the transcript notes several instances of overlapping speech (e.g., [[00:08],[00:09]], [[00:11],[00:12]]), these are all self-overlaps or backchannels where a speaker says something short during their own turn. These are not disruptive overlaps between speakers. They function more like natural conversational fillers or affirmations and do not hinder the flow of communication. The turn-taking is clean and efficient.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/282",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:07]] A: Wow, Nahomi, this is really beautiful! I love the colors and the design is so intricate. It's amazing!\n[[00:02],[00:03]] A: I see.\n[[00:03],[00:04]] A: Right.\n[[00:08],[00:12]] B: Thank you, Devlin. I'm glad you like it. I put a lot of work\n[[00:10],[00:10]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:11],[00:16]] A: Sorry to jump in, but how long did it take you to complete this piece?\n[[00:13],[00:14]] A: Okay,okay.\n[[00:16],[00:26]] B: It took me about two weeks. I can tell you more about the process if you're interested. I can tell you about the different techniques I used and the challenges I faced.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Right.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] B: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:27],[00:31]] A: Yes, please! But before that, do you do this kind of work often?\n[[00:29],[00:29]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:32],[00:36]] B: Yeah, I've been doing art for a while now. It's one of my favorite things to do.\n[[00:34],[00:35]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:37],[00:38]] A: Do you sell your work?\n[[00:38],[00:44]] B: Yeah, I have a few pieces that are for sale. But I also like to give them away to family and friends.\n[[00:40],[00:41]] B: Uh.\n[[00:44],[00:47]] A: That's really nice of you. I'm sure they appreciate it.\n[[00:48],[00:53]] B: Thanks. I just enjoy making art and seeing other people enjoy it too.\n[[00:49],[00:50]] B: That's cool.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and coherence of the dialogue.\n\n1. A starts by complimenting B's artwork, setting the topic.\n2. B responds appropriately with thanks.\n3. A asks a relevant question about the time it took to create the piece.\n4. B answers the question directly and offers more information.\n5. A shows interest but pivots to another related question about how often B does this kind of work. This is a logical and coherent shift.\n6. B answers the new question.\n7. A follows up with another related question about selling the work.\n8. B answers this question as well.\n9. The conversation continues with relevant follow-up comments and responses from both speakers.\n\nAll turns are logically connected and stay on the topic of B's artwork. The conversation flows naturally from one related sub-topic to another. There are no signs of logical inconsistency or topic incoherence. The response relevance is excellent.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to analyze the flow of the conversation, looking for long pauses or extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:** I will check the time gaps between turns.\n * [00:07] -> [00:08]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n * [00:16] -> [00:16]: 0-second pause. The speaker change is immediate.\n * [00:26] -> [00:27]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n * [00:31] -> [00:32]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n * [00:36] -> [00:37]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n * [00:38] -> [00:38]: 0-second pause. Immediate.\n * [00:44] -> [00:44]: 0-second pause. Immediate.\n * [00:47] -> [00:48]: 1-second pause. Normal.\n All pauses are brief and typical for a natural conversation. There are no long, awkward silences.\n\n2. **Overlaps:** I will check for overlapping timestamps between different speakers.\n * A's utterance [[00:11],[00:16]] overlaps with B's utterance [[00:08],[00:12]]. The overlap occurs from [00:11] to [00:12], lasting about 1 second. This is a brief interruption, and A even acknowledges it (\"Sorry to jump in\"), which is a common and natural conversational behavior. It does not disrupt the flow negatively.\n * The other short utterances like \"Okay, okay\" or \"Right\" are backchannels that can naturally overlap slightly without being disruptive. In this transcript, they are timed well and do not create extended, competitive overlaps.\n\nThe interaction is very fluent, with natural turn-taking, short pauses, and a single, brief, and socially-managed overlap.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/290",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:01]] A: Whoa, what happened in here?\n[[00:02],[00:05]] B: Oh, nothing. Just a little accident.\n[[00:05],[00:07]] A: What kind of accident?\n[[00:07],[00:11]] B: I was cooking and I accidentally set the kitchen on\n[[00:09],[00:09]] B: Hmm.\n[[00:11],[00:14]] A: Oh my gosh, are you alright? Did you get hurt?\n[[00:12],[00:12]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:14],[00:18]] B: Yeah, I'm fine. But my apartment is a total mess.\n[[00:16],[00:17]] B: That's cool.\n[[00:18],[00:20]] A: Do you need any help cleaning up?\n[[00:20],[00:24]] B: No, I think I've got it under control. But thanks for offering.\n[[00:21],[00:22]] B: Uh.\n[[00:24],[00:30]] A: No problem. So, what were you cooking when the fire started? Was it something particularly flammable?\n[[00:26],[00:27]] A: Really.\n[[00:31],[00:35]] B: Actually, I wanted to ask if you have any tips for cleaning up after something like this?\n[[00:32],[00:33]] B: Mhm.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate the relevance and logical consistency of the dialogue.\n\n1. **[00:00]-[00:05]** A asks what happened, and B gives a direct, relevant answer about a \"little accident.\"\n2. **[00:05]-[00:11]** The conversation follows a logical path where A asks for more details, and B explains it was a cooking fire.\n3. **[00:11]-[00:18]** A's expression of concern (\"are you alright?\") is a natural reaction, and B's response is coherent, confirming they are fine but that the apartment is a mess. The self-interjection \"That's cool\" is slightly odd in this context but is very brief and doesn't derail the main point.\n4. **[00:18]-[00:24]** A's offer to help clean is a logical follow-up to B stating the apartment is a \"total mess.\" B's refusal is also a perfectly normal response.\n5. **[00:24]-[00:35]** A then returns to the topic of the fire's origin. B changes the subject by asking for cleaning tips. While B just declined an offer of physical help, asking for advice or tips is a different kind of request. This is a plausible and logical distinction in a real-world conversation (e.g., \"I don't need you to come over and scrub, but do you know what product gets rid of smoke stains?\").\n\nOverall, the dialogue maintains topic coherence, and the turns are logically connected. The minor odd interjections do not create significant logical inconsistencies.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to evaluate the interactional fluency, focusing on long pauses and extended overlaps.\n\n1. **Pauses:** I will check the timestamps between turns.\n * [00:01] to [00:02]: 1-second pause. Acceptable.\n * [00:05] to [00:05]: No pause.\n * [00:07] to [00:07]: No pause.\n * [00:11] to [00:11]: No pause.\n * [00:14] to [00:14]: No pause.\n * [00:18] to [00:18]: No pause.\n * [00:20] to [00:20]: No pause.\n * [00:24] to [00:24]: No pause.\n * [00:30] to [00:31]: 1-second pause. Acceptable.\n There are no prolonged pauses in the conversation. The turn-taking is smooth and immediate.\n\n2. **Overlaps:** I will check for overlapping timestamps between different speakers or extended self-overlaps.\n * All detected overlaps ([[00:09],[00:09]], [[00:12],[00:12]], [[00:16],[00:17]], [[00:21],[00:22]], [[00:26],[00:27]], [[00:32],[00:33]]) are very brief (1 second or less) and are self-overlaps, where a speaker says a short filler word while also talking. They do not interrupt the other speaker or disrupt the conversational flow.\n There are no harmful, extended overlaps.\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent, with natural turn-taking and no disruptive pauses or overlaps.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/292",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:06]] A: Hey, it's okay. I don't want to fight with you. Let's just put the toy down and take a break, alr\n[[00:02],[00:02]] A: Really.\n[[00:03],[00:04]] A: Sure.\n[[00:06],[00:09]] B: No, I don't want to! This is my toy and you can't have it!\n[[00:07],[00:08]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:10],[00:18]] A: Why are you being so difficult? We can share the toy, or we can take turns with it. There's no need to figh over something that we both can enjoy.\n[[00:12],[00:13]] A: I see.\n[[00:14],[00:15]] A: Cool.\n[[00:18],[00:21]] B: I don't want to share! I want the toy all to myself!\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: Ummm.\n[[00:22],[00:29]] A: Well, that's not going to happen. So either we share or we don't play with the toy at all. What's it going to be?\n[[00:24],[00:25]] A: Really.\n[[00:29],[00:32]] B: Fine, we'll share. But I'm still not happy about it!",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue presents a coherent and logical argument between two speakers, A and B, over a toy. Speaker A attempts to de-escalate and find a solution (sharing), while Speaker B initially resists before eventually conceding. Each turn is a direct and relevant response to the previous one, maintaining the topic and advancing the narrative of the conflict and its resolution. The conversation is consistent and easy to follow.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between the main speaker turns; the transitions are either immediate or have a natural, one-second gap (e.g., between 00:09 and 00:10). The transcript shows several very brief, one-second overlaps (e.g., \"Ummm,\" \"Really,\" \"I see\"). These are either short, naturalistic interjections or hesitations within a speaker's own turn, not disruptive or extended overlaps between the two main speakers. The flow of the conversation is smooth and natural.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/294",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: Hi, thanks for coming. I really appreciate it.\n[[00:02],[00:05]] B: It's no problem at all. So, how are you today?\n[[00:06],[00:11]] A: I'm doing well, thanks. Just excited to get started with my lessons\n[[00:08],[00:09]] A: Sure.\n[[00:10],[00:14]] B: Oh, before we dive into that, did you have a chance to practice what we went over last time?\n[[00:12],[00:12]] B: Mm hmm.\n[[00:14],[00:23]] A: I did practice, but I was hoping to learn some more chords and maybe how to play a few more songs that could help improve my technique.\n[[00:17],[00:18]] A: Mhm.\n[[00:19],[00:20]] A: Ummm.\n[[00:23],[00:30]] B: That's awesome! I actually have a couple of new songs in mind that might be perfect for you. What kind of songs are you interested in?\n[[00:25],[00:26]] B: Uh huh.\n[[00:27],[00:28]] B: Mhm.\n[[00:31],[00:37]] A: I was thinking of some classic rock songs. But before we start, can you remind me of the chords we covered last time?\n[[00:34],[00:35]] A: Really.",
+ "model_output": "\nThe user wants me to evaluate a dialogue transcript for response relevance and interactional fluency.\n\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n1. **A: \"Hi, thanks for coming.\" -> B: \"It's no problem... how are you today?\"** This is a standard, polite, and relevant exchange.\n2. **B: \"...how are you today?\" -> A: \"I'm doing well... excited to get started...\"** This is a direct and relevant answer.\n3. **A: \"...excited to get started...\" -> B: \"Oh, before we dive into that, did you have a chance to practice...?\"** This is a logical transition for a lesson, checking on previous material before starting new things. It is coherent with the context.\n4. **B: \"...did you practice...?\" -> A: \"I did practice, but I was hoping to learn some more chords...\"** A answers the question directly and then pivots to their goals for the current session. This is a relevant and coherent response.\n5. **A: \"...learn some more chords and... songs...\" -> B: \"That's awesome! ...What kind of songs are you interested in?\"** B acknowledges A's goal and asks a relevant clarifying question to help achieve it.\n6. **B: \"...What kind of songs...?\" -> A: \"I was thinking of some classic rock songs. But before we start, can you remind me of the chords...\"** A answers B's question and then makes a relevant request to review past material.\n\nThe dialogue flows logically from greetings to a review of past work, to setting goals for the current session. Each turn is a coherent and relevant response to the previous one. There are no inconsistencies or topic breaks.\n\n\n\nThe user wants me to analyze the interactional fluency, specifically looking for extended overlaps and long pauses.\n\n**Pause Analysis:**\n- There is a 1-second pause between B's turn ending at [00:05] and A's turn beginning at [00:06]. This is a natural conversational pause.\n- There is a 1-second pause between B's turn ending at [00:30] and A's turn beginning at [00:31]. This is also a normal, brief pause.\n- There are no prolonged pauses that would indicate a breakdown in fluency.\n\n**Overlap Analysis:**\n- There is an overlap between A's utterance finishing at [00:11] and B's starting at [00:10]. B begins speaking slightly before A has finished. This is a common, minor interruption and does not disrupt the flow of the conversation.\n- The other overlaps ([00:12], [00:17], [00:19], [00:25], [00:27], [00:34]) are all very short, single-word backchannels (\"Mm hmm\", \"Mhm\", \"Ummm\", \"Uh huh\", \"Really\"). These are markers of active listening and are characteristic of natural, fluent conversation. They are not harmful or extended overlaps.\n\nOverall, the interaction is very fluid. The pauses are natural, and the overlaps are either minor interruptions or backchannels that contribute to the conversational flow rather than hindering it.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "key": "/root/autodl-tmp/ms-swift/newdataset_10k/output_manman_300/extracted_dialogues_manman/299",
+ "text_input": "[[00:00],[00:02]] A: I can't believe how different the world was back then!\n[[00:03],[00:07]] B: Yeah, it's amazing to think about how much has changed in just a few decades.\n[[00:05],[00:06]] B: Mm.\n[[00:08],[00:16]] A: I know. It's really interesting to see what life was like for people in other parts of the world. The pictures are just incredible.\n[[00:10],[00:11]] A: Hmm.\n[[00:12],[00:13]] A: Sure.\n[[00:16],[00:26]] B: I know. I've been looking at some of the articles too and they're really fascinating. Did you know that there were only four billion people on the planet in 1970?\n[[00:19],[00:20]] B: I see.\n[[00:21],[00:21]] B: Okay,okay.\n[[00:27],[00:37]] A: No, I had no idea! That's incredible. And now there are almost eight billion people. Just think about how much the world has\n[[00:30],[00:31]] A: Uh huh.\n[[00:32],[00:32]] A: Yeah, yeah.\n[[00:36],[00:42]] B: Sorry to jump in, but that population growth is staggering. Do you think our resources can keep up with this pace?\n[[00:39],[00:40]] B: Cool.\n[[00:42],[00:57]] A: It's a real concern. The strain on resources is significant, and it's something we need to address urgently. But I was also going to mention how technology has evolved to help us manage these resources more efficiently.\n[[00:47],[00:48]] A: Mm hmm.\n[[00:49],[00:50]] A: Right.\n[[00:58],[01:06]] B: Speaking of technology, isn't it amazing how it's connected us globally? The way we communicate now is light years ahead of what it was back then.\n[[01:07],[01:17]] A: Absolutely, the advancements are mind-blowing. I'm really glad I found these old issues of National Geographic. I'm going to keep them and maybe even start a scrapbook.\n[[01:17],[01:19]] B: That sounds like a great idea!",
+ "model_output": "\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. The conversation maintains a clear and coherent topic, starting with a general reflection on how the world has changed, prompted by old magazines. Each speaker's turn logically builds upon the previous one. For example, B introduces the specific fact about population growth in 1970, which is directly relevant to the theme of change. A's response shows comprehension and expands on this point by contrasting it with the present-day population. B then asks a thoughtful follow-up question about resource management, which is a logical consequence of the population discussion. The topic then smoothly transitions to technology's role, first in resource management and then in global communication, with each shift being relevant and well-connected to the overall theme. The conversation is logically consistent and easy to follow from start to finish.\n\n\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no prolonged or awkward pauses between turns; the gaps are consistently short and natural, indicating an engaged and seamless flow. While there are several instances of overlapping speech, they are not detrimental. Most overlaps are brief, single-word backchannels (e.g., \"Uh huh,\" \"Cool,\" \"Right\") that occur during the other person's turn, which is typical of natural, supportive listening. There is one more significant overlap at [00:36], where B interrupts A. However, B explicitly mitigates this interruption by saying, \"Sorry to jump in,\" which makes the overlap feel polite and enthusiastic rather than rude or disruptive. This type of managed interruption is a common feature of highly engaged, natural conversation. Overall, the pacing is smooth and conversational.\n\n\n2",
+ "predicted_score": 2,
+ "prediction_attempts": 1
+ }
+]
\ No newline at end of file