DraDDP: A Multimodal Multi-Party Dialogue Discourse Parsing Dataset
Organizations: School of Computer Science and Technology, Soochow University, Suzhou, China
Abstract
Multi-party dialogue discourse parsing aims to identify dependency structures and relation types between utterances in conversations. Previous studies are mostly limited to textual modality or two-party dialogue, failing to meet the multimodal and multi-party settings. In this paper, we construct the first publicly available English multimodal dataset DraDDP for multi-party dialogue discourse parsing, based on American TV dramas. DraDDP contains 495 dialogue segments with 6,374 utterances and 9.1 hours of parallel video content, covering rich multi-party interaction scenarios. Moreover, we establish comprehensive benchmarks by evaluating this task on DraDDP and conducting in-depth analysis on the impact of different modalities. Experimental results demonstrate the value of multimodal information in capturing dialogue structures and relation types. We will publicly release the dataset, annotation guidelines, and code to promote future research in multimodal dialogue understanding.
Figures & tables
| Modalities | Dataset | #Dialogues | #Utterances | Data Source | Language | Participants |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T | STAC | 1.1K | 10.7K | Online game | English | Multi-party |
| T | Molweni | 10K | 88.3K | Online forums | English | Multi-party |
| T | DialogueDSA | 705 | 24.5K | TV drama | Chinese | Multi-party |
| T | MSDC | 541 | 22.6K | Online game | English | Two-party |
| T+I | JDDC 2.1 | 246K | 3.46M | E-commerce platform | Chinese | Two-party |
| T+V+A | MODDP | 864 | 18K | TV drama | Chinese | Two-party |
| Category | Model | DraDDP | MODDP | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Link | Link&Rel | Link | Link&Rel | ||
| Unimodal | RLTST | 76.94 | 40.10 | 90.76 | 41.41 |
| BERTLine | 78.65 | 45.82 | 90.73 | 40.96 | |
| MODDP | 83.31 | 45.06 | 92.46 | 43.66 | |
| LLaMIPa | 84.71 | 53.39 | 91.32 | 53.05 | |
| LLaMIPa † | 85.03 | 54.58 | 91.55 | 53.68 | |
| Category | Train | Dev | Test | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dialogues | 345 | 75 | 75 | 495 |
| Utterances | 4,447 | 962 | 965 | 6,374 |
| Avg. Utt/Dialog | 12.89 | 12.83 | 12.87 | 12.88 |
| Avg. Utt Length | 9.54 | 10.19 | 9.59 | 9.64 |
| Model | LLaMIPa ‡ (Qwen2.5) | LLaMIPa ‡ (Qwen2.5-VL) | LLaMIPa ‡ (Qwen2-Audio) | LLaMIPa ‡ (Qwen2.5-Omni) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Link | Link&Rel | Link | Link&Rel | Link | Link&Rel | Link | Link&Rel | |
| 88.87 | 53.20 | 88.28 | 55.28 | 88.8 | 54.09 | 89.17 | 55.05 | |
| 80.80 | 53.30 | 81.60 | 51.30 | 83.20 | 54.90 | 80.60 | 48.90 | |
| 79.85 | 55.42 | 81.77 | 51.58 | 87.54 | 61.19 | 87.54 | 59.27 | |
| Discourse Relation | Definition | DraDDP (%) | STAC (%) | MODDP (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Question-Answer Pair (QAP) | Arg2 is the answer to the question raised by Arg1. | 17.8 | 24.2 | 9.4 |
| Clarification_Question (Clafi) | Arg2 provides clarification for Arg1. | 16.8 | 2.5 | 6.4 |
| Comment (Comt) | Arg2 expresses a viewpoint or evaluation of Arg1. | 14 | 17.6 | 16.4 |
| Acknowledgement (Ack) | Arg2 shows approval or acknowledgment for Arg1. | 9.6 | 9.6 | 2.7 |
| Contrast (Contrast) | Arg1 and Arg2 differ on a shared theme. | 7.6 | 4.7 | 6.6 |
| Elaboration (Elab) | Arg2 elaborates on Arg1 in detail. | 6.8 | 8.3 | 15.7 |
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Speaker Count | D=1 | D=2 | D=3 | D=4 | D 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 88.6% | 9.0% | 1.2% | 0.8% | 0.3% | |
| 80.2% | 13.5% | 3.0% | 1.5% | 1.8% | |
| 78.1% | 12.6% | 3.3% | 2.1% | 3.9% |
| Modalities | Link | Link&Rel |
|---|---|---|
| T | 84.67 | 53.69 |
| V | 43.38 | 22.21 |
| A | 47.39 | 38.83 |
| T+V | 83.61 | 52.97 |
| T+A | 84.83 | 54.76 |
| V+A | 50.12 | 40.39 |
| Category | Model | Link | Link&Rel |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unimodal | Claude-Sonnet-4 | 71.46 | 23.18 |
| GPT-4o | 78.11 | 35.87 | |
| Qwen3-235B | 71.48 | 42.18 | |
| Multimodal | Gemini 2.5 Pro | 68.17 | 21.69 |
| Qwen3-VL-235B | 71.64 | 37.71 |
| Type | Distinction | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Clafi | Clarification_Question is to ask about the “current situation, details, or ambiguities of an existing statement” to confirm facts or eliminate information bias. | : There’s nothing to tell. It’s just some guy I work with. : C’mon, you’re going out with the guy. There’s gotta be something wrong with him! |
| Q-Elab | Q-Elab is to further inquire or expand on an “already raised question” to obtain more comprehensive information, focusing on the “question itself”. | : Who’s Paul? : Paul, the wine guy? Paul? |
| Continu | Continuation is generally a “parallel extension” to the current topic, with no strict order, which is just horizontal expansion of the topic. | : I say push her down the stairs. : Push her down the stairs! Push her down the stairs! Push her down the stairs! |
| Narr | Narration is a “vertical expansion” of the current topic, with a clear implicit sequence, process, or logical connection, presenting complete events or information. | : Yeah, right! See, he gave up something, but then he got those magic beans. : And then he woke up, and there was a big plant outside his window, full of possibilities and stuff… |
| Expl | Explanation provides a clear reason, basis, or reasoning process for a “certain viewpoint, phenomenon, or result”, focusing on “answering why”. | : Oh my god, oh, you guys are great. : We all chipped in. |
| Backg | Background has a weaker causal relationship, providing relevant background information (such as time, scene, premise, etc.) for the “current topic”. | : I’m smoking. I’m smoking, I’m smoking. : Oh, I can’t believe you! You’ve been so good, for three years! |