Modeling the Quality of Dialogical Explanations
Abstract Explanations are pervasive in our lives. Mostly, they occur in dialogical form where an explainer discusses a concept or phenomenon of interest with an explainee. Leaving the explainee with a clear understanding is not straightforward due to the knowledge gap between the two participants. Previous research looked at the interaction of explanation moves, dialogue acts, and topics in successful dialogues with expert explainers. However, daily-life explanations often fail, raising the question of what makes a dialogue successful. In this work, we study explanation dialogues in terms of the interactions between the explainer and explainee and how they correlate with the quality of explanations in terms of a successful understanding on the explainee’s side. In particular, we first construct a corpus of 399 dialogues from the Reddit forum Explain Like I am Five and annotate it for interaction flows and explanation quality. We then analyze the interaction flows, comparing them to those appearing in expert dialogues. Finally, we encode the interaction flows using two language models that can handle long inputs, and we provide empirical evidence for the effectiveness boost gained through the encoding in predicting the success of explanation dialogues.
Introduction. Explanations play a significant role in our daily life. Typically, they are realized through dialogues, where one person is an explainer while the other takes the explainee position. The explainer’s primary goal is to convey information about a particular concept or phenomenon to the explainee clearly and concisely. However, ensuring that the explainee understands an explanation successfully is challenging: Effective explanations require more than just information delivery. Expert explainers usually plan an explanation strategy by choosing appropriate explanation moves, dialogue acts, and topics to ensure optimal comprehension on the explainee side (Wachsmuth and Alshomary, 2022). Additionally, explainees may actively engage in dialogues by asking clarification questions and providing feedback to ensure they understand the information correctly (Madumal et al., 2019). Most previous research has studied monological explanations (Fan et al., 2019; Situ et al., 2021), where an explainer provides a single-turn explanation, ignoring the role of the explainee in the interaction.
Discussion / Conclusion. We studied real-life explanation dialogues and how to assess their success. To this end, we constructed a dataset of real-life explanation dialogues from the Explain Like I am Five Subreddit. We annotated it according to the explanation taxonomy of Wachsmuth and Alshomary (2022) and rated the quality of these dialogues in terms of the explainee’s understanding. Our analysis provides insights into the difference between these dialogues and expert explanation dialogues. We then assessed the performance of pre-trained language models in predicting the quality of explanation dialogues and found that encoding specific interaction flows into their input boosts effectiveness. In quantifying the explanation dialogue quality, we relied on the annotators’ intuition of guessing the explainee’s understanding.
Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24
Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.
What dialogue structures and repair patterns enable communication success?- What does it mean to truly attend to someone in conversation?
- How do dialogue dimensions predict explanation success across different exchanges?
- Does conversational structure determine how humans interpret communication as much as content?
- Why do monological explanations fail to transfer understanding compared to dialogical ones?
- How do dialogue acts and explanation moves interact to predict understanding success?
- How does linguistic coordination build shared reference between conversational partners?
- What role does accommodation play in making discourse coherent?
- How does the Question Under Discussion shape what content projects?
- What specific repair mechanisms maintain intersubjectivity during conversation?
- What psychological mechanisms actually produce alignment effects in conversations?
- Does conversational shape carry diagnostic meaning independent of what is discussed?
- What makes human discourse fundamentally temporal in structure?
- Why do stakeholders interpret the same explanation differently in practice?
- Should explanation quality be measured by user satisfaction or behavior prediction?
- Why might expressed satisfaction with explanations diverge from actual cognitive clarity?
- What makes some interpretive postures stick while others fail to form?
- How do organizational roles and peer interpretations shape what an explanation means?
- Why does explanation source matter more than explanation content?