DRInQ: Evaluating Conversational Implicature with Controlled Context Variation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.24267v1
• Date: Fri, 22 May 2026 22:39:32 GMT
• Title: DRInQ: Evaluating Conversational Implicature with Controlled Context Variation
• Abstract summary: We introduce DRinQ, a benchmark for evaluating pragmatic reasoning about conversational implicature in question utterances.<n>We propose a semi-automated pipeline that produces question-context-interpretation instances with systematic variation.
• Score: 24.87053225680957
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Human conversation relies heavily on conversational implicature, in which speakers convey meanings that are suggested rather than explicitly stated. Although recent large language models exhibit strong conversational fluency, they remain unreliable when interpretation depends on reasoning that integrates social and contextual cues, a process rarely articulated in text. We introduce DRinQ, a benchmark for evaluating pragmatic reasoning about conversational implicature in question utterances, designed to isolate pragmatic variation while holding each question's surface form fixed. To support scalable evaluation, we propose a semi-automated pipeline that produces question-context-interpretation instances with systematic variation. Across evaluations, we find a consistent generation-inference asymmetry: while state-of-the-art models can generate plausible pragmatic scenarios when guided, they often fail to recover the intended implication at inference time. For smaller models, structured prompting improves alignment with human judgments. A comparative writing study further reveals complementary strengths: human authors tend to produce safer, predictable contexts, whereas models generate varied scenarios with interpretations that sometimes exceed contextual support. These findings highlight persistent challenges in modeling conversational implicature and motivate more context-sensitive evaluation frameworks.

Related papers

• When Contextual Inference Fails: Cancelability in Interactive Instruction Following [51.2195840589474]
  We introduce Build What I Mean, an interactive benchmark for contextual meaning construction.<n>In BWIM, models must resolve ambiguity by either performing a contextual inference or requesting clarification at a small communication cost.<n>We observe suboptimal strategies, such as partner-blind over-clarification and question-averse guessing under uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-20T14:46:59Z)
• On the Fallacy of Global Token Perplexity in Spoken Language Model Evaluation [88.77441715819366]
  Generative spoken language models pretrained on large-scale raw audio can continue a speech prompt with appropriate content.<n>We propose a variety of likelihood- and generative-based evaluation methods that serve in place of naive global token perplexity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-09T22:01:56Z)
• Evaluating Robustness of Dialogue Summarization Models in the Presence of Naturally Occurring Variations [13.749495524988774]
  We systematically investigate the impact of real-life variations on state-of-the-art dialogue summarization models. We introduce two types of perturbations: utterance-level perturbations that modify individual utterances with errors and language variations, and dialogue-level perturbations that add non-informative exchanges. We find that both fine-tuned and instruction-tuned models are affected by input variations, with the latter being more susceptible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T05:11:43Z)
• How Well Do Text Embedding Models Understand Syntax? [50.440590035493074]
  The ability of text embedding models to generalize across a wide range of syntactic contexts remains under-explored. Our findings reveal that existing text embedding models have not sufficiently addressed these syntactic understanding challenges. We propose strategies to augment the generalization ability of text embedding models in diverse syntactic scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T08:51:00Z)
• Quantifying the Plausibility of Context Reliance in Neural Machine Translation [25.29330352252055]
  We introduce Plausibility Evaluation of Context Reliance (PECoRe) PECoRe is an end-to-end interpretability framework designed to quantify context usage in language models' generations. We use pecore to quantify the plausibility of context-aware machine translation models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-02T13:26:43Z)
• DiPlomat: A Dialogue Dataset for Situated Pragmatic Reasoning [89.92601337474954]
  Pragmatic reasoning plays a pivotal role in deciphering implicit meanings that frequently arise in real-life conversations. We introduce a novel challenge, DiPlomat, aiming at benchmarking machines' capabilities on pragmatic reasoning and situated conversational understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-15T10:41:23Z)
• On the Use of Linguistic Features for the Evaluation of Generative Dialogue Systems [17.749995931459136]
  We propose that a metric based on linguistic features may be able to maintain good correlation with human judgment and be interpretable. To support this proposition, we measure and analyze various linguistic features on dialogues produced by multiple dialogue models. We find that the features' behaviour is consistent with the known properties of the models tested, and is similar across domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-13T16:28:00Z)
• I Beg to Differ: A study of constructive disagreement in online conversations [15.581515781839656]
  We construct a corpus of 7 425 Wikipedia Talk page conversations that contain content disputes. We define the task of predicting whether disagreements will be escalated to mediation by a moderator. We develop a variety of neural models and show that taking into account the structure of the conversation improves predictive accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-26T16:36:43Z)
• I like fish, especially dolphins: Addressing Contradictions in Dialogue Modeling [104.09033240889106]
  We introduce the DialoguE COntradiction DEtection task (DECODE) and a new conversational dataset containing both human-human and human-bot contradictory dialogues. We then compare a structured utterance-based approach of using pre-trained Transformer models for contradiction detection with the typical unstructured approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-24T18:47:49Z)
• Learning an Unreferenced Metric for Online Dialogue Evaluation [53.38078951628143]
  We propose an unreferenced automated evaluation metric that uses large pre-trained language models to extract latent representations of utterances. We show that our model achieves higher correlation with human annotations in an online setting, while not requiring true responses for comparison during inference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-01T20:01:39Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.