REVIEW 1 cited by
MentalManip: A Dataset For Fine-grained Analysis of Mental Manipulation in Conversations
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
abstract
Mental manipulation, a significant form of abuse in interpersonal conversations, presents a challenge to identify due to its context-dependent and often subtle nature. The detection of manipulative language is essential for protecting potential victims, yet the field of Natural Language Processing (NLP) currently faces a scarcity of resources and research on this topic. Our study addresses this gap by introducing a new dataset, named ${\rm M{\small ental}M{\small anip}}$, which consists of $4,000$ annotated movie dialogues. This dataset enables a comprehensive analysis of mental manipulation, pinpointing both the techniques utilized for manipulation and the vulnerabilities targeted in victims. Our research further explores the effectiveness of leading-edge models in recognizing manipulative dialogue and its components through a series of experiments with various configurations. The results demonstrate that these models inadequately identify and categorize manipulative content. Attempts to improve their performance by fine-tuning with existing datasets on mental health and toxicity have not overcome these limitations. We anticipate that ${\rm M{\small ental}M{\small anip}}$ will stimulate further research, leading to progress in both understanding and mitigating the impact of mental manipulation in conversations.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
A Combined Feature Embedding Tools for Multi-Class Software Defect and Identification
CodeGraphNet, a GraphCodeBERT-plus-GCN embedding with a DeepTree classifier, is claimed to detect five CWE vulnerability classes at 98% accuracy, but its own unseen-data results are much lower (76-87%) and baseline co...
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.