Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

DeliChess introduces a specialized dataset for multi-party dialogue focused on structured, complex reasoning tasks within chess puzzle solving. The study demonstrates that while group deliberation significantly improves collective accuracy, the use of probing utterances introduces performance variability without guaranteeing better outcomes. This resource serves as a valuable testbed for modeling group reasoning dynamics and resolving differing perspectives in strategic domains.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

DeliChess: A Multi-party Dialogue Dataset for Deliberation in Chess Puzzle Solving

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2606.04987v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-party dialogue is a critical setting for studying collaborative reasoning and decision-making, yet existing datasets rarely focus on structured, in-depth complex reasoning tasks. We introduce DeliChess, a novel dataset of group deliberation dialogues in which participants collaboratively solve multiple-choice chess puzzles. Each group first completes the puzzle individually, then engages in a multi-party discussion before submitting a revised collective answer. The dataset includes 107 dialogues with full transcripts, pre- and post-discussion choices, and metadata on puzzle difficulty and move quality. We evaluate performance using three metrics based on chess engine evaluations, and find that deliberation significantly improves group accuracy. We further analyse the role of probing utterances (i.e., messages that elicit proposals, justifications, or strategic reflection) using a classifier trained on prior deliberation data. While probing makes group performance more variable after discussion, it does not consistently lead to better performance. Our dataset offers a rich testbed for modelling group reasoning, dialogue dynamics, and the resolution of differing perspectives and opinions in a well-defined strategic domain.

Abstract:Multi-party dialogue is a critical setting for studying collaborative reasoning and decision-making, yet existing datasets rarely focus on structured, in-depth complex reasoning tasks. We introduce DeliChess, a novel dataset of group deliberation dialogues in which participants collaboratively solve multiple-choice chess puzzles. Each group first completes the puzzle individually, then engages in a multi-party discussion before submitting a revised collective answer. The dataset includes 107 dialogues with full transcripts, pre- and post-discussion choices, and metadata on puzzle difficulty and move quality. We evaluate performance using three metrics based on chess engine evaluations, and find that deliberation significantly improves group accuracy. We further analyse the role of probing utterances (i.e., messages that elicit proposals, justifications, or strategic reflection) using a classifier trained on prior deliberation data. While probing makes group performance more variable after discussion, it does not consistently lead to better performance. Our dataset offers a rich testbed for modelling group reasoning, dialogue dynamics, and the resolution of differing perspectives and opinions in a well-defined strategic domain.

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC)

arXiv:2606.04987 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2606.04987v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.04987 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 267 words

Related coverage