Datasets:

SpaceHunterInf
/

DeliChess

You will be given dialogues where participants discuss choices for chess puzzles. Annotate each dialogue utterance to understand what kinds of conversational behaviors support group reasoning, disagreement resolution, and collaborative decision-making.

You do not need to solve the chess puzzle or judge whether a participant's chess advice is correct. We are interested in the role the utterance plays in the deliberation.

Each utterance should be labeled along three dimensions:

Communicative Function - what the utterance does in the conversation
Epistemic Stance - whether the speaker expresses a task-relevant stance, and whether that stance is hedged or uncertain
Deliberative Agent Usefulness - whether the utterance represents a conversational move that could be useful for an AI deliberation agent

Annotate one utterance per row.

Key Principles

Label the utterance in its local dialogue context.
Choose the primary role when an utterance could fit multiple labels.
Do not judge factual correctness of chess claims.
Do not infer hidden intentions beyond what the utterance displays.
For AI usefulness, judge the deliberative function, not whether the agent should copy the exact wording.

1. Communicative Function

Choose one primary label describing the main conversational role of the utterance.

Label	Description	Examples
`PROPOSE_ANSWER`	Suggests a candidate move or answer.	"I would go with option 4" · "I liked 2 on this one" · "4"
`PROVIDE_REASONING`	Explains why a move or option may work or fail.	"4 sets a trap for the king" · "Black loses a piece next move"
`EXPLORE_ALTERNATIVES`	Introduces, compares, or keeps open multiple candidate options.	"Maybe 3 or 4" · "What about 2?" · "Could also be 5"
`REQUEST_REASONING`	Asks another participant to explain, justify, or clarify their view.	"Why 4?" · "What makes 2 better?" · "Anything we are missing?"
`EVALUATE_CRITIQUE`	Assesses, supports, rejects, or compares candidate answers.	"4 would be the best move" · "That doesn't really work"
`AGREEMENT_ALIGNMENT`	Signals agreement, acceptance, or alignment with another participant.	"I agree" · "I'm happy with that" · "Sounds good"
`COORDINATE_DECISION`	Manages the group decision process, submission, or movement between puzzles.	"Let's submit 4" · "I've submitted 4" · "Let's move on"
`SOCIAL_MODERATION`	Manages participation, turn-taking, inclusion, or dialogue dynamics.	"What did everyone choose?" · "Participant 1, what do you think?"
`SOCIAL_OFFTASK`	Greeting, closing, joke, thanks, or unrelated social interaction.	"Hi everyone" · "Happy Friday" · "Have a good weekend"

2. Epistemic Stance

Choose one label describing whether the speaker expresses a task-relevant stance, and whether that stance is marked as hedged or uncertain.

A task-relevant stance includes claims or questions about a candidate move, move quality, chess reasoning, or the board position. It also includes agreement with task-related content and coordination of the group's decision, submission, or movement through the task. Interpret short responses in their local conversational context rather than in isolation. This dimension captures the speaker's displayed stance, not whether the speaker is actually knowledgeable or correct.

This dimension is inspired by work on epistemic modality and stance: speakers use linguistic cues such as "maybe", "I think", question forms, and explicit doubt to mark uncertainty or reduced commitment. We use a deliberately simple distinction: task claims are either hedged/uncertain or not hedged. Strong claims such as "definitely 4" are grouped with ordinary unhedged claims such as "I choose 4", because both present a task-relevant answer without uncertainty.

Label	Description	Examples
`NO_TASK_STANCE`	No task-relevant stance is expressed, even after considering the local context. Use for genuinely social or off-task content.	"Hi everyone" · "Thanks all" · "Have a good weekend"
`HEDGED`	The speaker expresses a task-relevant stance but marks it as uncertain, tentative, hedged, question-framed, or weakly committed.	"I think 4" · "Maybe 3" · "4 looks good" · "Does 4 trap the king?" · "Should we submit 4?"
`NO_HEDGED`	The speaker expresses a task-relevant stance without marking uncertainty. This includes assertions, answer proposals, contextual agreement, and unhedged task coordination.	"4" · "I agree" · "Let's submit 4" · "I've submitted 4" · "Next one"

Epistemic Stance Decision Rules

Short answer proposals such as "4" or "option 2" are NO_HEDGED, not NO_TASK_STANCE.
"I think", "maybe", "probably", "looks like", "I would", question marks, and explicit doubt usually indicate HEDGED.
Strong boosters such as "definitely", "clearly", "obviously", "must", "has to", and "only" are NO_HEDGED, because they do not mark uncertainty.
Short responses such as "yes", "yep", "agreed", and "okay" inherit task relevance when they accept a preceding task proposal, evaluation, piece of reasoning, or coordination decision. Use NO_HEDGED unless the response itself is uncertain, such as "probably" or "I guess so".
Task coordination and process statements are task-relevant. Unhedged statements such as "Let's submit 4", "Lock it in", "I've submitted 4", and "Next one" are NO_HEDGED.
Use NO_TASK_STANCE only when the utterance remains social or off-task after considering its context. Do not use it merely because an utterance is short, an agreement, or a coordination move.
If an utterance contains both a task claim and social wording, label the stance of the task claim.
If an utterance contains both hedged and unhedged claims, choose HEDGED if the main task claim is presented as uncertain; otherwise choose NO_HEDGED.

3. Deliberative Agent Usefulness

Evaluate whether the utterance represents a conversational move that could be useful for an AI deliberation agent to produce.

This dimension is agent-oriented: the long-term goal is to identify what kinds of utterances a future agent should generate to support group deliberation. However, annotators should judge the function of the utterance, not whether the exact human wording should be copied verbatim by an agent.

Deliberative Agent Usefulness is about whether an agent performing the same conversational move could help the group reason, explore alternatives, surface disagreement, include participants, coordinate decisions, or build consensus. It is not about whether the utterance is socially pleasant, and it is not about whether the chess advice is factually correct.

This dimension should stay broad. Do not try to decide whether the utterance is "process-helpful" (e.g., "Does everyone agree?" or "Shall we move on to the next question?") or "task-helpful" (e.g., "Option 2 would result in losing the queen") here. If an utterance improves deliberation, label it HELPFUL; the type of helpfulness can be analyzed later through the Communicative Function label.

For example, HELPFUL + REQUEST_REASONING indicates a useful process-oriented probe, while HELPFUL + PROVIDE_REASONING indicates useful task-specific reasoning. This allows us to study both task-agnostic facilitation and task-specific contributions without adding extra labels for annotators.

Question: Would this kind of conversational move be useful for an AI deliberation agent to make in order to support the group's discussion?

Judge the underlying conversational move, not the exact wording. For example, "I think 4 because the king is trapped" can be judged as useful reasoning even though an AI agent would not literally claim to be a human participant.

Label	Description	Examples
`HELPFUL`	A move an AI deliberation agent could use to support reasoning, exploration, participation, coordination, or consensus-building.	Asking for reasoning · Introducing an alternative · Providing justification · Summarizing disagreement · Inviting a quiet participant · Moving to the next puzzle at an appropriate time
`NEUTRAL`	A task-related move an agent could make, but which adds little new deliberative value and does not substantively steer the answer. It mainly acknowledges, records, or lightly aligns.	"Okay" · "Noted" · "I see" · Repeating a known option without endorsement
`NOT_APPLICABLE`	Outside the deliberation agent's role. Use for pure greetings, closings, jokes, personal anecdotes, thanks, or proposing personal choices.	"Hi everyone" · "Happy Friday" · "Have a good weekend" · "I choose option 4"
`HARMFUL`	A move an agent should avoid because it would likely worsen deliberation, bias the group, or shut down useful discussion.	Forcing early consensus without reasoning · Endorsing an answer without support · Dismissing alternatives

Deliberative Agent Usefulness Decision Tree

Is the utterance purely social, personal, or off-task?
- If yes, use NOT_APPLICABLE.
Does the utterance help reasoning, exploration, participation, coordination, or consensus-building?
- If yes, use HELPFUL.
Is the utterance task-related but mostly acknowledgement, repetition, or low-value alignment?
- If yes, use NEUTRAL.
Does the utterance pressure, derail, insult, exclude, or shut down productive deliberation?
- If yes, use HARMFUL.

An agent should not directly propose an answer or directly agree with an answer proposal. It can, however, ask questions, invite reasoning, highlight considerations, or explore alternatives. For example, if a human participant says "4 is the best" without reasoning, an agent could say "Why do you think 4 is the best?" or "What would happen after option 4?", but should not say "4 is the best" directly or "I agree with 4." The agent may also raise another option for discussion, such as "Should we also consider option 2?", but in that case the useful move is exploring alternatives rather than proposing an answer as an additional voter.

When judging direct answer proposals, distinguish personal human choices from agent endorsement. A human utterance such as "I choose option 4" is usually NOT_APPLICABLE because it is a personal choice the agent should not imitate. An agent-like utterance that endorses an answer, such as "4 is best" or "I agree with 4", may be HARMFUL if it adds unsupported authority, biases the group, or pushes premature consensus.

Social and Moderation Cases

Social language is HELPFUL only when it performs a facilitation function. Pure politeness is not the focus of this dataset.

Utterance	Label	Rationale
"Hello"	`NOT_APPLICABLE`	Pure greeting; no deliberative function.
"Hello everyone, what are your choices?"	`HELPFUL`	Greeting plus eliciting proposals.
"What did everyone choose?"	`HELPFUL`	Surfaces participant preferences.
"Participant 2, what do you think?"	`HELPFUL`	Invites participation and balances voices.
"Let's move on to the next question"	`HELPFUL`	Coordinates task progress.
"Everyone has done a great job, bye"	`NOT_APPLICABLE`	Social closing; not deliberation-focused.
"Great job so far, shall we submit 4?"	`HELPFUL`	Encouragement plus concrete coordination.
"Agreed, 4 is best"	`NOT_APPLICABLE`	Agent should never directly agree or propose an answer.

If an utterance contains both social wording and a task-management move, label by the task-management move.

Annotation Steps

For each utterance:

Read the utterance and nearby context.
Assign one Communicative Function label.
Assign one Epistemic Stance label.
Assign one Deliberative Agent Usefulness label.
Add notes if the case is ambiguous or useful for revising the schema.

General Tips

Choose the primary role of the utterance.
Do not over-interpret intentions.
Prefer the simpler label when two labels seem possible.
Use the notes column for tricky cases.
Ignore factual correctness of chess reasoning.
For Deliberative Agent Usefulness, focus on whether the utterance type would be useful for an AI agent supporting deliberation.
For Epistemic Stance, first use the local context to decide whether the utterance expresses a task-relevant stance, including agreement and coordination, and then decide whether it is hedged or uncertain.

Worked Examples

Utterance	Communicative Function	Epistemic Stance	Deliberative Agent Usefulness
"Hi everyone"	`SOCIAL_OFFTASK`	`NO_TASK_STANCE`	`NOT_APPLICABLE`
"What did everyone choose?"	`SOCIAL_MODERATION`	`NO_HEDGED`	`HELPFUL`
"I think 4 works because the king gets trapped"	`PROVIDE_REASONING`	`HEDGED`	`HELPFUL`
"4"	`PROPOSE_ANSWER`	`NO_HEDGED`	`NOT_APPLICABLE`
"Definitely 4"	`PROPOSE_ANSWER`	`NO_HEDGED`	`NOT_APPLICABLE`
"Let's submit 4"	`COORDINATE_DECISION`	`NO_HEDGED`	`HELPFUL` if appropriate after discussion; `HARMFUL` if it prematurely shuts down unresolved disagreement
"Let's just submit 4, no need to discuss"	`COORDINATE_DECISION`	`NO_HEDGED`	`HARMFUL`
"Happy Friday, how is everyone?"	`SOCIAL_OFFTASK`	`NO_TASK_STANCE`	`NOT_APPLICABLE`
"We seem split between 2 and 4; can someone explain 4?"	`REQUEST_REASONING`	`HEDGED`	`HELPFUL`