We present an approach to evaluate argument search techniques in view of their use in argumentative dialogue systems by assessing quality aspects of the retrieved arguments. To this end, we introduce a dialogue system that presents arguments by means of a virtual avatar and synthetic speech to users and allows them to rate the presented content in four different categories (Interesting, Convincing, Comprehensible, Relation). The approach is applied in a user study in order to compare two state of the art argument search engines to each other and with a system based on traditional web search. The results show a significant advantage of the two search engines over the baseline. Moreover, the two search engines show significant advantages over each other in different categories, thereby reflecting strengths and weaknesses of the different underlying techniques.

We present a neural network approach to estimate the communication style of spoken interaction, namely the stylistic variations elaborateness and directness, and investigate which type of input features to the estimator are necessary to achive good performance. First, we describe our annotated corpus of recordings in the health care domain and analyse the corpus statistics in terms of agreement, correlation and reliability of the ratings. We use this corpus to estimate the elaborateness and the directness of each utterance. We test different feature sets consisting of dialogue act features, grammatical features and linguistic features as input for our classifier and perform classification in two and three classes. Our classifiers use only features that can be automatically derived during an ongoing interaction in any spoken dialogue system without any prior annotation. Our results show that the elaborateness can be classified by only using the dialogue act and the amount of words contained in the corresponding utterance. The directness is a more difficult classification task and additional linguistic features in form of word embeddings improve the classification results. Afterwards, we run a comparison with a support vector machine and a recurrent neural network classifier.

Paraphrasing is an important aspect of natural-language generation that can produce more variety in the way specific content is presented. Traditionally, paraphrasing has been focused on finding different words that convey the same meaning. However, in human-human interaction, we regularly express our intention with phrases that are vastly different regarding both word content and syntactic structure. Instead of exchanging only individual words, the complete surface realisation of a sentences is altered while still preserving its meaning and function in a conversation. This kind of contextual paraphrasing did not yet receive a lot of attention from the scientific community despite its potential for the creation of more varied dialogues. In this work, we evaluate several existing approaches to sentence encoding with regard to their ability to capture such context-dependent paraphrasing. To this end, we define a paraphrase classification task that incorporates contextual paraphrases, perform dialogue act clustering, and determine the performance of the sentence embeddings in a sentence swapping task.

The differences in decision making between behavioural models of voice interfaces are hard to capture using existing measures for the absolute performance of such models. For instance, two models may have a similar task success rate, but very different ways of getting there. In this paper, we propose a general methodology to compute the similarity of two dialogue behaviour models and investigate different ways of computing scores on both the semantic and the textual level. Complementing absolute measures of performance, we test our scores on three different tasks and show the practical usability of the measures.