Wait! There's a Way Out: A Decision Mechanism for Forecasting Conversational Derailment
Authors: Laerdon Kim, Vivian Nguyen, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil
Organizations: Cornell University
Abstract
Forecasting conversational derailment is the task of predicting, as the conversation unfolds, whether it will eventually derail into personal attacks. Since forecasting models operate in an online fashion, they must decide whether to "trigger" an alert after each utterance--for example, to notify participants or a moderator that the conversation is at risk of derailing. Existing approaches make this decision solely based on the estimated likelihood of derailment given the preceding utterances, implicitly assuming that the conversation's future trajectory is fixed. As a result, they ignore the possibility of future recovery and incur an unnecessarily high rate of false positives. In this work we propose a method for decoupling the decision to trigger from derailment likelihood estimation. Our approach is inspired by the first human baseline on this task, which shows that humans achieve dramatically lower false positive rates by selectively deferring their decision to trigger when they anticipate that tension is likely to subside. We operationalize this insight with a deferral mechanism that uses forward-looking simulations to assess whether a tense moment admits plausible paths to recovery. Incorporating this mechanism into a state-of-the-art forecasting model substantially reduces false positives without sacrificing forecasting accuracy. More broadly, this work highlights the value of treating decision-making as a first-class component of forecasting systems.
Conversational derailment forecasting aims to predict when online discussions will escalate into hostility, enabling proactive moderation. Existing approaches often struggle in low-data settings and to generalize across domains. This poses a challenge for new platforms and smaller communities where annotated data is limited. We propose modeling pragmatic representations of conversations to reduce lexical noise and improve generalizability. Specifically, speech act information is used as an auxiliary learning signal alongside textual semantics. Experimental results show improved performance across three datasets, particularly in low-data and cross-domain settings.
Angela Yifei Yuan, Christine De Kock, Christopher Leckie
Trust in an AI system is often anchored by explanations of how it works, which one then uses to forecast its behavior on new inputs. For large reasoning models (LRMs), this conventional route is particularly difficult to follow: explanation methods for single token generations do not naturally generalize to long trajectories, and the trajectories themselves are often not faithful when read as natural language. We propose an alternative that bypasses the explanation step: treat behavior forecasting as a learnable task and train Behavior Forecasters that operates on a single reasoning trajectory to make the same forecasts one would typically seek from an explanation. The forecaster's training data is obtained by querying the LRM with no human annotation, and its inference is done in a single forward pass. We instantiate this approach on two tasks: how likely the LRM is to repeat its answer on re-runs, and how removing parts of the input changes its answer. We evaluate this approach on both tasks across three diverse reasoning datasets and find that trained Behavior Forecasters are more accurate than GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus-4.6 reading the same trajectories as naive readers, at a small fraction of their inference cost. We find that fine-tuning the backbone end-to-end and initializing it from the target LRM are each necessary for strong performance. These results show that the reasoning trajectory carries information about the LRM's future behavior that goes beyond what naive reading conveys.
Task-oriented dialogue systems often fail before the final breakdown is obvious, but most evaluation only measures failure after the conversation has already gone wrong. We present TRACER, a method for early failure detection in task-oriented dialogue. TRACER predicts from a partial dialogue whether the full conversation will eventually fail by combining simple trajectory signals from belief-state changes with text representations of the evolving dialogue state. We evaluate the method in both oracle and generated belief-state settings, and test how well it works when only 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% of the dialogue is visible. Across these settings, TRACER detects useful failure signals well before the end of the conversation and outperforms heuristic, classical, and single-stream baselines. These results suggest that early failure detection can provide a practical warning signal for dialogue systems before the interaction fully breaks down.