Datasets:
Tasks:
Text Classification
Formats:
csv
Languages:
English
Size:
< 1K
Tags:
pragmatic-reasoning
theory-of-mind
emotion-inference
indirect-speech
benchmark
multi-annotator
License:
Upload README.md with huggingface_hub
Browse files
README.md
CHANGED
|
@@ -33,17 +33,27 @@ dataset_info:
|
|
| 33 |
dtype: string
|
| 34 |
- name: power_relation
|
| 35 |
dtype: string
|
| 36 |
-
- name: social_context
|
| 37 |
-
dtype: string
|
| 38 |
- name: gold_standard
|
| 39 |
dtype: string
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 40 |
splits:
|
| 41 |
- name: train
|
| 42 |
-
num_examples:
|
| 43 |
- name: validation
|
| 44 |
-
num_examples:
|
| 45 |
- name: test
|
| 46 |
-
num_examples:
|
| 47 |
---
|
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
# CEI: A Benchmark for Evaluating Pragmatic Reasoning in Language Models
|
|
@@ -62,7 +72,26 @@ CEI (Contextual Emotional Inference) is a benchmark of 300 expert-authored scena
|
|
| 62 |
### Scenarios
|
| 63 |
- **300 scenarios** across 5 pragmatic subtypes (60 each)
|
| 64 |
- **3 independent annotations** per scenario (900 total)
|
| 65 |
-
- **Predefined splits:** train (
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
### Pragmatic Subtypes
|
| 68 |
| Subtype | Description | Fleiss' kappa |
|
|
@@ -75,9 +104,8 @@ CEI (Contextual Emotional Inference) is a benchmark of 300 expert-authored scena
|
|
| 75 |
|
| 76 |
### Labels
|
| 77 |
- **Primary emotion:** One of Plutchik's 8 basic emotions (joy, trust, fear, surprise, sadness, disgust, anger, anticipation)
|
| 78 |
-
- **VAD ratings:** Valence, Arousal, Dominance
|
| 79 |
-
- **
|
| 80 |
-
- **Gold standard:** Majority vote with expert adjudication
|
| 81 |
|
| 82 |
### Power Relations
|
| 83 |
- Peer (72%), High-to-Low authority (20%), Low-to-High authority (7%)
|
|
@@ -85,7 +113,7 @@ CEI (Contextual Emotional Inference) is a benchmark of 300 expert-authored scena
|
|
| 85 |
## Key Statistics
|
| 86 |
- **Inter-annotator agreement:** Overall kappa = 0.21 (fair), ranging from 0.06 (deflection) to 0.25 (sarcasm)
|
| 87 |
- **Human accuracy (vs. gold):** 61% mean, 14.3% unanimous, 31.3% three-way split
|
| 88 |
-
- **Best LLM baseline:** 25.
|
| 89 |
- **Random baseline:** 12.5% (8-class)
|
| 90 |
|
| 91 |
## Intended Uses
|
|
@@ -104,7 +132,7 @@ CEI (Contextual Emotional Inference) is a benchmark of 300 expert-authored scena
|
|
| 104 |
```bibtex
|
| 105 |
@article{chun2026cei,
|
| 106 |
title={CEI: A Benchmark for Evaluating Pragmatic Reasoning in Language Models},
|
| 107 |
-
author={Chun, Jon and Sussman, Hannah and Mangine, Adrian and Kocaman, Murathan and Sidorko, Kirill and Koirala, Abhigya and McCloud, Andre and Eisenbeis, Gwen and Akanwe, Wisdom and Gassama, Moustapha and Gonzalez Chirinos, Eliezer and Enright, Anne-Duncan and Dunson, Peter and Ng, Tiffanie and von Rosenstiel, Anna and Idowu, Godwin},
|
| 108 |
journal={Journal of Data-centric Machine Learning Research (DMLR)},
|
| 109 |
year={2026}
|
| 110 |
}
|
|
|
|
| 33 |
dtype: string
|
| 34 |
- name: power_relation
|
| 35 |
dtype: string
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 36 |
- name: gold_standard
|
| 37 |
dtype: string
|
| 38 |
+
- name: ann1_emotion
|
| 39 |
+
dtype: string
|
| 40 |
+
- name: ann2_emotion
|
| 41 |
+
dtype: string
|
| 42 |
+
- name: ann3_emotion
|
| 43 |
+
dtype: string
|
| 44 |
+
- name: valence_mean
|
| 45 |
+
dtype: float64
|
| 46 |
+
- name: arousal_mean
|
| 47 |
+
dtype: float64
|
| 48 |
+
- name: dominance_mean
|
| 49 |
+
dtype: float64
|
| 50 |
splits:
|
| 51 |
- name: train
|
| 52 |
+
num_examples: 211
|
| 53 |
- name: validation
|
| 54 |
+
num_examples: 48
|
| 55 |
- name: test
|
| 56 |
+
num_examples: 41
|
| 57 |
---
|
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
# CEI: A Benchmark for Evaluating Pragmatic Reasoning in Language Models
|
|
|
|
| 72 |
### Scenarios
|
| 73 |
- **300 scenarios** across 5 pragmatic subtypes (60 each)
|
| 74 |
- **3 independent annotations** per scenario (900 total)
|
| 75 |
+
- **Predefined splits:** train (211), validation (48), test (41), stratified by subtype and power relation
|
| 76 |
+
|
| 77 |
+
### Fields
|
| 78 |
+
|
| 79 |
+
| Field | Type | Description |
|
| 80 |
+
|-------|------|-------------|
|
| 81 |
+
| `id` | int | Scenario ID (unique within subtype) |
|
| 82 |
+
| `subtype` | string | Pragmatic subtype (sarcasm-irony, mixed-signals, strategic-politeness, passive-aggression, deflection-misdirection) |
|
| 83 |
+
| `context` | string | Situational context (2-4 sentences) |
|
| 84 |
+
| `speaker` | string | Speaker's role in the scenario |
|
| 85 |
+
| `listener` | string | Listener's role in the scenario |
|
| 86 |
+
| `utterance` | string | The speaker's pragmatically ambiguous utterance |
|
| 87 |
+
| `power_relation` | string | Power dynamic: peer, high-to-low, or low-to-high |
|
| 88 |
+
| `gold_standard` | string | Gold-standard emotion (majority vote + expert adjudication) |
|
| 89 |
+
| `ann1_emotion` | string | Annotator 1's emotion label (Plutchik) |
|
| 90 |
+
| `ann2_emotion` | string | Annotator 2's emotion label (Plutchik) |
|
| 91 |
+
| `ann3_emotion` | string | Annotator 3's emotion label (Plutchik) |
|
| 92 |
+
| `valence_mean` | float | Mean valence rating across annotators (-1.0 to +1.0) |
|
| 93 |
+
| `arousal_mean` | float | Mean arousal rating across annotators (-1.0 to +1.0) |
|
| 94 |
+
| `dominance_mean` | float | Mean dominance rating across annotators (-1.0 to +1.0) |
|
| 95 |
|
| 96 |
### Pragmatic Subtypes
|
| 97 |
| Subtype | Description | Fleiss' kappa |
|
|
|
|
| 104 |
|
| 105 |
### Labels
|
| 106 |
- **Primary emotion:** One of Plutchik's 8 basic emotions (joy, trust, fear, surprise, sadness, disgust, anger, anticipation)
|
| 107 |
+
- **VAD ratings:** Mean Valence, Arousal, Dominance across 3 annotators, mapped to [-1.0, +1.0]
|
| 108 |
+
- **Gold standard:** Majority vote with expert adjudication for three-way splits
|
|
|
|
| 109 |
|
| 110 |
### Power Relations
|
| 111 |
- Peer (72%), High-to-Low authority (20%), Low-to-High authority (7%)
|
|
|
|
| 113 |
## Key Statistics
|
| 114 |
- **Inter-annotator agreement:** Overall kappa = 0.21 (fair), ranging from 0.06 (deflection) to 0.25 (sarcasm)
|
| 115 |
- **Human accuracy (vs. gold):** 61% mean, 14.3% unanimous, 31.3% three-way split
|
| 116 |
+
- **Best LLM baseline:** 25.0% accuracy (Llama-3.1-70B, zero-shot) vs. 54% human majority agreement
|
| 117 |
- **Random baseline:** 12.5% (8-class)
|
| 118 |
|
| 119 |
## Intended Uses
|
|
|
|
| 132 |
```bibtex
|
| 133 |
@article{chun2026cei,
|
| 134 |
title={CEI: A Benchmark for Evaluating Pragmatic Reasoning in Language Models},
|
| 135 |
+
author={Chun, Jon and Sussman, Hannah and Pechon-Elkins, Mateo and Mangine, Adrian and Kocaman, Murathan and Sidorko, Kirill and Koirala, Abhigya and McCloud, Andre and Eisenbeis, Gwen and Akanwe, Wisdom and Gassama, Moustapha and Gonzalez Chirinos, Eliezer and Enright, Anne-Duncan and Dunson, Peter and Ng, Tiffanie and von Rosenstiel, Anna and Idowu, Godwin},
|
| 136 |
journal={Journal of Data-centric Machine Learning Research (DMLR)},
|
| 137 |
year={2026}
|
| 138 |
}
|