Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 48 references

PersonaTAB: Predicting Personality Traits using Textual, Acoustic, and Behavioral Cues in Fully-Duplex Speech Dialogs

T0 review · 4 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a cue-rich pipeline combining ASR transcripts with laughter, backchannel, interjection, and emotion/sentiment cues lets an LLM predict Big Five personality from fully-duplex speech dialogues with stronger alignment…

desk verdict Useful pipeline and resource, but the headline comparison to human judgments is not statistically supported; worth refereeing with major revisions. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14356 v1 pith:SN4R7QGM submitted 2025-05-20 cs.SD cs.CLeess.AS

Sho Inoue , Shai Wang , Haizhou Li This is my paper
classification cs.SDcs.CLeess.AS
keywords personalitypredictionBigFivespeechdialoguefully-duplexconversationlargelanguagemodelsbackchannelclassificationlaughterdetectionMUSHRAevaluation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that conversational personality can be read from speech-only recordings by extracting structured behavioral cues and feeding them to an LLM. It introduces a pipeline that converts two-channel recordings, where both speakers can talk at once, into timed dialogue transcripts with laughter tokens, turn and overlap labels, backchannel types, and emotion and sentiment percentages. The central claim is that this cue-rich prompt yields Big Five predictions more aligned with human listener judgments than three text-only baselines, with an average correlation of 0.183 and average cosine similarity of 0.503. If correct, this gives conversational agents a way to infer personality from natural interaction without needing any personality-labeled speech dataset at training time. The paper also positions the work as the first to integrate interjection behaviors, acoustics, and other conversational traits with textual data for personality prediction.

What carries the argument

The central object is the PersonaTAB prompt, a text representation of a speaker assembled from four attribute categories: Emotion and Sentiment percentages, Basics statistics that include turns, speaking duration, laughter, backchannels, and interjections normalized into five relative groups, and sampled responses. The prompt is fed to an LLM that returns five-level alignment scores for each Big Five trait. The pipeline that builds the prompt, using ASR word timestamps, 700 ms response boundaries, overlap detection, and LLM-based backchannel classification, is the enabling mechanism because it turns raw audio into features an LLM can reason over.

What would settle it

Re-run the evaluation with a larger, screened panel of listeners and report inter-rater agreement, while also checking whether the full prompt's cosine similarity beats every ablated subset; Table 4 already shows the Samples-only condition at 0.551 versus 0.503 for the full prompt, so the claim that the full prompt consistently outperforms all conditions is directly testable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is that combining textual, acoustic, and behavioral cues within a single LLM prompt produces personality scores that track human evaluations more closely than text-only models. The pipeline first reconstructs dialogue structure from raw two-channel audio: word-level timestamps from ASR, laughter tokens, response boundaries from silence gaps, overlap and interjection labels, and LLM-classified backchannels. It then summarizes each speaker with emotion and sentiment percentages, relative-group statistics for turns, speaking duration, laughter, backchannels, and interjections, plus sampled responses, and lets an LLM rate each Big Five dimension on a five-level alignment scale. The paper reports that this system outperforms the text-only baselines on both trend alignment and ground-truth correlation, interpreting these results as evidence that conversational behavior carries personality signal beyond what text alone provides.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 20 human listeners' personality ratings are reliable enough to serve as ground truth, and if those ratings are noisy or idiosyncratic, the reported correlations lose their benchmark value.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Personality-aware conversation agents could be built from the pipeline's labels without needing pre-annotated personality datasets, since the labels are derived automatically from raw speech.
  • The identified cue list gives concrete behavioral indicators for each trait, such as extraversion aligning with frequent turns and laughter, and neuroticism aligning with anger and fear emotions.
  • The reported gains over text-only baselines suggest that speech-specific signals, including laughter, backchanneling, and interjections, carry personality information that text-only models miss.
  • The resulting dataset, with timestamps, response types, and emotion and sentiment labels, is reusable for other conversational-analysis tasks beyond personality prediction.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the reported alignment transfers, the same prompt template could label other two-channel or diarized speech corpora, effectively turning personality prediction into a data-annotation service for training personality-conditioned agents.
  • The relative-group normalization of numeric statistics, which converts counts into labels such as Normal, Many, Few, and Very Many, is a generally reusable way to make continuous conversational features legible to an LLM and could apply to other social attributes like rapport or dominance.
  • The per-trait results suggest that different cues matter differently for different traits, so a system that weights cues per trait rather than using a single prompt might improve on the reported correlations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper proposes PersonaTAB, a pipeline that takes two-channel audio recordings of fully-duplex telephone conversations (a 95-conversation subset of Fisher) and automatically produces a dialog dataset with timestamps, laughter labels, turn/overlap/backchannel/interjection labels, and emotion/sentiment annotations. It then uses GPT-4o to predict Big Five personality traits from speaker attributes drawn from these annotations, including textual samples, emotion/sentiment percentages, and conversational statistics such as turn frequency, laughter, backchannels, and interjections. The system is evaluated against three text-only baselines (LM, BERT, MiniLM) using two metrics: a 'Trend' score based on human-derived expected attribute–trait associations, and correlations/cosine similarity with human ratings from a MUSHRA-style listening test. The paper reports that the proposed system achieves stronger alignment with human judgments than the baselines, and includes an ablation study of the attribute categories.

Significance. If the central claim is supported, the paper offers a useful and relatively complete pipeline for personality prediction from speech-only dialog data, integrating acoustic, behavioral, and textual cues in a way that prior text-only systems do not. The dataset preprocessing and the use of an LLM to consume structured conversational statistics are of interest to the spoken dialog and personality computing communities. However, the strength of the empirical evidence is currently limited by missing reliability and uncertainty analyses for the human ground-truth labels, an under-specified evaluation metric, and an ablation conclusion that is contradicted by the reported numbers. The pipeline itself is a reasonable contribution, but the validation needs substantial strengthening before the headline claim can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Sec. 5.1, Table 3] The central comparative claim rests on correlations between model predictions and human labels from the listening test, yet the paper does not report the number of raters per 90-second dialogue, any rater-screening procedure, or any inter-rater agreement statistic (e.g., ICC, Krippendorff's alpha). With average correlations around 0.18 and a margin over BERT of only 0.087 on avg Corr, the reported difference may be within noise. Please report per-item rater counts, inter-rater reliability, and bootstrap confidence intervals or significance tests for the differences in Table 3.
  2. [Sec. 5.2, Table 4] The text states that "the full prompt consistently outperforms other conditions across all metrics," but Table 4 does not support this. The condition with only Emotion and Sentiment ("- - O O") has Trend=0.277, higher than the full prompt's 0.186; the condition with Basics, Emotion, and Sentiment ("- O O O") has Trend=0.210; and the condition with Samples and Basics ("O O - -") has Cosine=0.603, higher than the full prompt's 0.503. The ablation conclusion is therefore internally inconsistent with the reported results and must be corrected or reinterpreted.
  3. [Sec. 5.1, Eq./text preceding Table 2] The Trend metric is not defined precisely enough to be reproducible or interpretable. The description "we computed a weighted sum of correlation coefficients between personality traits and raw speaker attributes" does not specify which correlation coefficient is used (Pearson vs. Spearman), the observations over which it is computed, how the weights are normalized from Table 1, or exactly how negative trends are handled. Additionally, because the weights are derived from Table 1, which is itself the output of the human survey (Sec. 4.2), the Trend metric is not an independent measure of human alignment; it measures agreement with the same human priors used to construct the metric. Please provide a formal definition and discuss this dependency.
  4. [Sec. 5.1, Table 3] The cosine similarity metric is undefined. It is not clear what vectors are compared (e.g., the predicted five-dimensional alignment scores vs. the human-rated scores for each speaker, averaged across speakers) or why BERT yields a negative cosine similarity of -0.543 while LM's entry is simply "-" with no explanation. Please specify the exact computation and either provide LM's value or explain its omission.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Sec. 1, Sec. 2.1] There are two obvious typos: "These agents are generally into two models" should read "divided into two models," and "in the blankets" should read "in the brackets."
  2. [Sec. 2.2] The footnotes defining "overlappee" and "overlapper" are awkward; these terms would be better defined directly in the main text.
  3. [Sec. 4.2] The paper describes the evaluation as "two MUSHRA tests" but does not explain how the standard MUSHRA protocol (e.g., reference condition, anchors, or grading scale) was adapted to personality alignment. Please clarify.
  4. [Sec. 5.1] The statement "We averaged five responses to yield reliable alignment scores" does not specify the GPT-4o temperature or the variance across the five repeats. Reporting the standard deviation or agreement across repeats would help assess reliability.
  5. [Table 3] LM's cosine similarity is reported as "-"; either provide the value or explain why it is not reported, since all other entries are numeric.
  6. [References] Reference [24] is cited with the author field "Anonymous" and venue "Submitted to ICLR, under review"; this is not an acceptable citable reference and should be replaced with a published version or removed.
  7. [Sec. 3.2, Step 3] The 700 ms sentence-merge threshold is justified by reference [30], which reports language generation latencies exceeding 600 ms; the connection between turn-taking latency and sentence boundary segmentation should be clarified, as these are distinct phenomena.
  8. [Sec. 5.1] The sentence reporting deviations for "surprise", "angry", and "sadness" (values -0.166, 0.0176, 0.079) is not tied to any table or equation; please explain the origin of these numbers or remove them.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

The Trend metric in Sec. 5.1/Table 2 is constructed from the same human survey that defines the expected attribute–trait trends, making that alignment measure partially self-referential; Table 3 provides an independent (though reliability-undocumented) listening-test benchmark.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 5.1, paragraph introducing Table 2 (after Table 1)]
    "For each personality label, we computed a weighted sum of correlation coefficients between personality traits and raw speaker attributes (prior to categorization), where higher values indicate stronger positive correlations. We derive the weights by normalizing the values in Table 1."

    Table 1 is 'derived solely from a human survey' in which the same human evaluators predicted trends between conversational characteristics and personality traits. The Table 2 'Trend' alignment score weights raw-attribute/prediction correlations by those exact survey values. Any model whose predicted trait scores correlate with attributes in the directions the survey already endorsed will score higher by construction, so the Trend metric measures agreement with the paper's own survey priors rather than with an independent outside benchmark. This is a partial self-reference: the evaluation criterion and the expected-trend ground truth come from the same human responses.

full rationale

Apart from the Trend metric, the derivation chain is largely self-contained: the preprocessing uses externally specified ASR, laughter detection, emotion/sentiment classifiers, and GPT-4o prompting, and the central comparison in Table 3 uses independent human labels from a listening test. That Table 3 comparison does not reduce to a fitted input or to the Table 1 survey. However, the paper never reports inter-rater agreement, per-dialogue rater counts, or rater screening for the Table 3 ground truth, so the reliability of the benchmark is undemonstrated; that is a measurement-quality concern rather than circularity. Given the one partially self-referential Trend metric and the independent Table 3 evidence, a score of 3 reflects partial circularity in one evaluation instrument without making the central claim reduce to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several hand-chosen thresholds and counts, on the validity of ASR and off-the-shelf classifiers, on GPT-4o's reliability as an annotator, and on the reliability of 20 human listeners as ground truth. No new physical or theoretical entities are introduced; the pipeline combines existing tools.

free parameters (6)
  • Sentence merge and overlap threshold = 700 ms
    Steps 3 and 4: words are merged into responses when inter-word gaps are below 700 ms, and overlaps shorter than 700 ms are excluded. The threshold is hand-chosen from [30] and is not validated on the Fisher corpus.
  • Relative-group binning thresholds = 0.8 x IQR and 1.2 x IQR
    Sec 3.3: Basic statistics are binned into Normal, Many or Few, and Very Many or Very Few using mean plus 0.8 and 1.2 times the interquartile range. These cutoffs are chosen by hand and affect the prompt content.
  • Sample count and duration for LLM prompt = 20 turns, each longer than 2 seconds
    Sec 3.3: twenty sample responses per speaker are randomly selected for the prompt. The random seed is not specified, so the selection is not reproducible.
  • Number of GPT-4o repeats = 5
    Sec 5.1: five LLM responses are averaged to produce alignment scores. No temperature or variance is reported.
  • Human evaluation segment length = 90 seconds
    Sec 4.2: evaluators rated alignment using a 90-second dialogue segment. The choice is not justified and may affect the reliability of the ratings.
  • Trend-metric weights = Normalized human-survey values from Table 1
    Sec 5.1: Table 2 scores are weighted sums of correlations between predicted personality and raw attributes, with weights normalized from the same human survey used to define the expected trends. This evaluation construction is chosen by the authors.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Big Five model is a valid and sufficient description of conversational personality.
    Sec 2.1 adopts the Big Five framework without discussing alternative trait models or context-dependent personality.
  • domain assumption Whisper Turbo ASR transcripts are accurate enough for emotion, sentiment, and personality inference.
    Step 1 uses ASR as the only textual source; no transcript quality analysis or comparison with human transcripts is reported.
  • domain assumption Off-the-shelf emotion and sentiment classifiers produce valid labels on ASR telephone transcripts.
    Step 6 applies distilroberta emotion and twitter-roberta sentiment classifiers without validation on this domain.
  • domain assumption GPT-4o is a reliable annotator for backchannel type and personality traits.
    Steps 5 and 3.3 use GPT-4o without calibration, uncertainty estimates, or agreement with expert labels.
  • domain assumption The 700 ms silence threshold from [30] transfers to Fisher telephone speech.
    Steps 3 and 4 rely on this threshold for turn and overlap definitions, but it is not validated on the Fisher corpus.
  • domain assumption Human MUSHRA listeners provide reliable ground-truth personality labels.
    Sec 4.2 and Sec 5.1 report 20 participants but no inter-rater reliability and no per-sample rater counts.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PersonaTAB: Predicting Personality Traits using Textual, Acoustic, and Behavioral Cues in Fully-Duplex Speech Dialogs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SN4R7QGM

@misc{pith2026250514356,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PersonaTAB: Predicting Personality Traits using Textual, Acoustic, and Behavioral Cues in Fully-Duplex Speech Dialogs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SN4R7QGM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14356}
}
read the original abstract

Despite significant progress in neural spoken dialog systems, personality-aware conversation agents -- capable of adapting behavior based on personalities -- remain underexplored due to the absence of personality annotations in speech datasets. We propose a pipeline that preprocesses raw audio recordings to create a dialogue dataset annotated with timestamps, response types, and emotion/sentiment labels. We employ an automatic speech recognition (ASR) system to extract transcripts and timestamps, then generate conversation-level annotations. Leveraging these annotations, we design a system that employs large language models to predict conversational personality. Human evaluators were engaged to identify conversational characteristics and assign personality labels. Our analysis demonstrates that the proposed system achieves stronger alignment with human judgments compared to existing approaches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.14356 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Diagrams of: (a) Overall PersonaTAB Pipeline; (b) Dataset Preprocessing from Two-Channel Speech Dialog Data; (c) Personality Prediction from Speaker Attributes using Large Language Models (LLMs) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualization of examples of (a) Turns and Overlaps; (b) Laugh Token Integration; (c) Sentence Concatenation from Word￾Level Time Stamps. 2.2. Terms in Fully-Duplex Setting We define turn-taking events based on prior studies [24, 25, 26, 27]. These events encompass turn-taking behaviors, backchan￾nels, and interjections [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Example Prompt for “Samples” 4. Experiment Setups 4.1. Dataset We used the Fisher dataset [37], a large-scale collection of tele￾phonic speech recordings. Each sample contains a 12-minute phone conversation between two speakers, with audio captured on separate channels. For this study, we evaluated our pipeline on a subset of the Fisher dataset [37] (folder 000), consisting of 95 conversations and 190 speakers. 4.2.… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example Prompt for “Basics” • Samples We include sample responses in the LLM prompt to analyze each speaker’s linguistic behavior. We randomly select 20 turns exceeding 2 seconds in duration (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    These agents are generally into two models: the turn-taking (streaming) model and the fully-duplex (interaction) model [1]

    Introduction Conversational agents have been extensively studied and de- ployed in applications such as voice assistants and chatbots. These agents are generally into two models: the turn-taking (streaming) model and the fully-duplex (interaction) model [1]. In the turn-taking model, the agent responds only after the user completes speaking [2, 3, 4], whe...

    work page

  2. [2]

    PersonaTAB: Predicting Personality Traits using Textual, Acoustic, and Behavioral Cues in Fully-Duplex Speech Dialogs

    Preliminaries 2.1. Personality Traits in Conversation We adopt the Big Five Personality Model [23], a widely recog- nized psychological framework that identifies patterns in indi- viduals’ thoughts, emotions, and behaviors along five dimen- sions. Each dimension is detailed as follows, with opposite terms in the blankets: • openness (closeness): intellect...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    come” and “on

    Methodology 3.1. Overall Pipeline We designed a pipeline to construct a dialog dataset exclusively from two-channel speech-only datasets. The resulting dataset includes timestamps, laughter labels, response labels, emotions, sentiments for each response, and personality labels for each speaker. We began by preprocessing the speech data to con- struct dial...

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Fre- quent Laughters

    Experiment Setups 4.1. Dataset We used the Fisher dataset [37], a large-scale collection of tele- phonic speech recordings. Each sample contains a 12-minute phone conversation between two speakers, with audio captured on separate channels. For this study, we evaluated our pipeline on a subset of the Fisher dataset [37] (folder 000), consisting of 95 conve...

    work page

  5. [5]

    highly aligned

    Experiments and Results 5.1. Personality Prediction We conducted experiments to compare our system with base- line methods. We classified speaker personality using GPT-4o6, which predicts the alignment between speaker attributes and each of the five personalities. Classification labels are “highly aligned” (100), “aligned” (50), “neutral” (0), “opposed” (...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Our analysis shows that our prediction model aligns more closely with human judgments than existing mod- els

    Conclusion We propose a pipeline for constructing a dialogue dataset with extensive labels and for predicting personality labels from speech-only data. Our analysis shows that our prediction model aligns more closely with human judgments than existing mod- els. Future work will investigate synthetic datasets with per- sonality labels, motivated by evidenc...

    work page

  7. [7]

    ZDSYS20230626091302006), (2) Shenzhen Science and Tech- nology Research Fund (Fundamental Research Key Project, Grant No

    Acknowledgements Research is supported by (1) Shenzhen Science and Tech- nology Program (Shenzhen Key Laboratory, Grant No. ZDSYS20230626091302006), (2) Shenzhen Science and Tech- nology Research Fund (Fundamental Research Key Project, Grant No. JCYJ20220818103001002), and (3) Program for Guangdong Introducing Innovative and Enterpreneurial Teams, Grant N...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Wavchat: A survey of spoken dialogue models,

    S. Ji, Y . Chen, M. Fang, J. Zuo, J. Lu, H. Wang, Z. Jiang, L. Zhou, S. Liu, X. Cheng et al., “Wavchat: A survey of spoken dialogue models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.13577, 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Speechgpt: Empowering large language models with intrinsic cross-modal conversational abilities,

    D. Zhang, S. Li, X. Zhang, J. Zhan, P. Wang, Y . Zhou, and X. Qiu, “Speechgpt: Empowering large language models with intrinsic cross-modal conversational abilities,” inConference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Spoken question answering and speech continuation using spectrogram-powered LLM,

    E. Nachmani, A. Levkovitch, R. Hirsch, J. Salazar, C. Asawaro- engchai, S. Mariooryad, E. Rivlin, R. Skerry-Ryan, and M. T. Ra- manovich, “Spoken question answering and speech continuation using spectrogram-powered LLM,” in The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Repr...

    2024

  3. [11]

    Llama- omni: Seamless speech interaction with large language models,

    Q. Fang, S. Guo, Y . Zhou, Z. Ma, S. Zhang, and Y . Feng, “Llama- omni: Seamless speech interaction with large language models,” 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Generative spoken dialogue language model- ing,

    T. A. Nguyen, E. Kharitonov, J. Copet, Y . Adi, W.-N. Hsu, A. Elkahky, P. Tomasello, R. Algayres, B. Sagot, A. Mohamed, and E. Dupoux, “Generative spoken dialogue language model- ing,” 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Moshi: a speech- text foundation model for real-time dialogue,

    A. D’efossez, L. Mazar’e, M. Orsini, A. Royer, P. P’erez, H. J’egou, E. Grave, and N. Zeghidour, “Moshi: a speech- text foundation model for real-time dialogue,” ArXiv, vol. abs/2410.00037, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    A full- duplex speech dialogue scheme based on large language model,

    P. Wang, S. Lu, Y . Tang, S. Yan, W. Xia, and Y . Xiong, “A full- duplex speech dialogue scheme based on large language model,” in The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    On backchannels in english conversation,

    V . Pipek, “On backchannels in english conversation,” 2007

    2007

  8. [16]

    Listeners as co-narrators,

    J. Bavelas, L. Coates, and T. Johnson, “Listeners as co-narrators,” Journal of personality and social psychology, vol. 79, pp. 941–52, 12 2000

    2000

  9. [17]

    Overhearers use addressee backchan- nels in dialog comprehension,

    J. Tolins and J. Fox Tree, “Overhearers use addressee backchan- nels in dialog comprehension,” Cognitive science , vol. 40, 09 2015

    2015

  10. [18]

    Personality in interaction: how the big five relate to the reception of interactive narratives,

    M. Soto-Sanfiel, L. Aymerich-Franch, E. Romero, M. Soto, M. Soto, and M. Sanfiel, “Personality in interaction: how the big five relate to the reception of interactive narratives,” COMMU- NICATION & SOCIETY / COMUNICACI ´ON Y SOCIEDAD , 06 2014

    2014

  11. [19]

    Us- ing linguistic cues for the automatic recognition of personality in conversation and text,

    F. Mairesse, M. A. Walker, M. R. Mehl, and R. K. Moore, “Us- ing linguistic cues for the automatic recognition of personality in conversation and text,”Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol. 30, pp. 457–500, 2007

    2007

  12. [20]

    Backchannel prediction, based on who, when and what,

    Y .-H. Park, W. Liermann, Y .-S. Choi, S. Kim, J.-U. Bang, S. Yun, and K. Lee, “Backchannel prediction, based on who, when and what,” 09 2024, pp. 3570–3574

    2024

  13. [21]

    Backchannel responses and enjoy- ment of the conversation: The more does not necessarily mean the better,

    H. Li, Y . Cui, and Z. Wang, “Backchannel responses and enjoy- ment of the conversation: The more does not necessarily mean the better,” International Journal of Psychological Studies, vol. 2, 05 2010

    2010

  14. [22]

    On back-channel behavior in japanese and english casual conversation,

    S. K. MAYNARD, “On back-channel behavior in japanese and english casual conversation,”Gengokenkyu, vol. 1987, no. 91, pp. 129–130, 1987

    1987

  15. [23]

    Continuous output personality detection models via mixed strategy training,

    R. Wang and K. Sun, “Continuous output personality detection models via mixed strategy training,” 06 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Text based personality prediction from multiple social media data sources using pre-trained language model and model averaging,

    H. Christian, D. Suhartono, A. Chowanda, and K. Zamli, “Text based personality prediction from multiple social media data sources using pre-trained language model and model averaging,” Journal of Big Data, vol. 8, 05 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Is chatgpt a good personality recognizer? a preliminary study,

    Y . Ji, W. Wu, H. Zheng, Y . Hu, X. Chen, and L. He, “Is chatgpt a good personality recognizer? a preliminary study,” 07 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Automatic personality prediction: an enhanced method using ensemble modeling,

    M. Ramezani, M.-R. Feizi-Derakhshi, M. A. Balafar, M. Asgari- Chenaghlu, A. R. F. Derakhshi, N. Nikzad-Khasmakhi, M. Ranjbar-Khadivi, Z. Jahanbakhsh-Nagadeh, E. Zafarani- Moattar, and T. Rahkar-Farshi, “Automatic personality prediction: an enhanced method using ensemble modeli...

    2020

  19. [27]

    Bottom-up and top-down: Predicting personal- ity with psycholinguistic and language model features,

    Y . Mehta, S. Fatehi, A. Kazameini, C. Stachl, E. Cambria, and S. Eetemadi, “Bottom-up and top-down: Predicting personal- ity with psycholinguistic and language model features,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) , 2020, pp. 1184–1189

    2020

  20. [28]

    A novel personality detection method based on high-dimensional psycholinguistic features and improved distributed gray wolf optimizer for feature selection,

    H. Lin, C. Wang, and Q. Hao, “A novel personality detection method based on high-dimensional psycholinguistic features and improved distributed gray wolf optimizer for feature selection,” Information Processing & Management, vol. 60, no. 2, p. 103217, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Modeling dyadic conversations for personality infer- ence,

    Q. Liu, “Modeling dyadic conversations for personality infer- ence,” 09 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    Personality structure: Emergence of the five- factor model,

    J. M. Digman, “Personality structure: Emergence of the five- factor model,” Annual Review of Psychology , vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 417–440, 1990

    1990

  23. [31]

    Talking turns: Benchmarking audio foundation models on turn-taking dynamics,

    Anonymous, “Talking turns: Benchmarking audio foundation models on turn-taking dynamics,” in Submitted to The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024, un- der review

    2024

  24. [32]

    Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversations,

    S. Duncan, “Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 283–292, 1972

    1972

  25. [33]

    Interjections,

    F. K. Ameka, “Interjections,” in Encyclopedia of Language & Lin- guistics, K. Brown, Ed. Elsevier, 2006, pp. 743–746

    2006

  26. [34]

    Turn-taking in conversational systems and human- robot interaction: A review,

    G. Skantze, “Turn-taking in conversational systems and human- robot interaction: A review,” Computer Speech & Language , vol. 67, p. 101178, 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervision,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, T. Xu, G. Brockman, C. McLeavey, and I. Sutskever, “Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervision,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2023, pp. 28 492–28 518

    2023

  28. [36]

    Robust laughter detection in noisy environments,

    J. Gillick, W. Deng, K. Ryokai, and D. Bamman, “Robust laughter detection in noisy environments,” 08 2021, pp. 2481–2485

    2021

  29. [37]

    Timing in turn-taking and its im- plications for processing models of language,

    S. C. Levinson and F. Torreira, “Timing in turn-taking and its im- plications for processing models of language,” Frontiers in Psy- chology, vol. 6, p. 731, 2015

    2015

  30. [38]

    Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation,

    T. Stivers, N. J. Enfield, P. Brown, C. Englert, M. Hayashi, T. Heinemann, G. Hoymann, F. Rossano, J. P. D. Ruiter, K.-E. Yoon, S. C. Levinson, P. Kay, and K. Y , “Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation,” Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Scien...

    2009

  31. [39]

    Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis,

    E. Schegloff, “Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis,” Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis I, vol. 1, pp. 1–300, 01 2007

    2007

  32. [40]

    ——, Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences , 01 1982, pp. 71–93

    1982

  33. [41]

    Gardner, When listeners talk: Response tokens and listener stance

    R. Gardner, When listeners talk: Response tokens and listener stance. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2001

    2001

  34. [42]

    Listener responses in interaction: A case for aban- doning the term, backchannel,

    D. Fujimoto, “Listener responses in interaction: A case for aban- doning the term, backchannel,” Journal of Osaka Jogakuin 2year College, vol. 37, 01 2007

    2007

  35. [43]

    Backchannels are not always very short utterances. the case of italian multi-unit backchannels,

    D. Mereu, F. Cangemi, and M. Grice, “Backchannels are not always very short utterances. the case of italian multi-unit backchannels,” Journal of Pragmatics, 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    Fisher english training speech parts 1 and 2,

    C. Cieri, D. Miller, and K. Walker, “Fisher english training speech parts 1 and 2,” 2004, accessed: 2025-01-09

    2004

  37. [45]

    BERT: pre- training of deep bidirectional transformers for language under- standing,

    J. Devlin, M. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova, “BERT: pre- training of deep bidirectional transformers for language under- standing,” CoRR, vol. abs/1810.04805, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Minilm: Deep self-attention distillation for task-agnostic com- pression of pre-trained transformers,

    W. Wang, F. Wei, L. Dong, H. Bao, N. Yang, and M. Zhou, “Minilm: Deep self-attention distillation for task-agnostic com- pression of pre-trained transformers,” 2020

    2020

  39. [47]

    Response generation based on the big five personality traits,

    W. Wanqi and T. Sakai, “Response generation based on the big five personality traits,” 2020

    2020

  40. [48]

    Generate labeled training data using prompt program- ming and gpt-3. an example of big five personality classification,

    E. Chen, “Generate labeled training data using prompt program- ming and gpt-3. an example of big five personality classification,” 03 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.