Real-TurnTurk: A Multimodal Turkish Corpus for Turn-Taking Prediction

Turn-taking is a basic organizational feature of human conversation and remains difficult to model in natural, synchronous dialog systems. While existing research has explored multimodal approaches and large language models for turn-ending prediction, there is a lack of naturalistic conversational corpora specifically addressing turn-taking dynamics in Turkish. This study introduces a multimodal Turkish conversational dataset of unscripted dyadic interactions, comprising synchronized front-facing video, per-speaker audio channels that allow overlapping speech to be attributed to individual speakers, and time-aligned transcriptions. Turn-taking prediction is formulated as a binary classification problem, and a Genetic Algorithm (GA) is employed to optimize interpretable decision rules derived from visual, acoustic, and linguistic features. A hybrid AND-OR rule representation is adopted in the proposed framework to represent the alternative cue combinations that precede a turn transition.

Internal Pluralism and the Limits of Pairwise Comparisons

Local pairwise comparisons are a standard tool for learning how people want decision rules to work, e.g., in participatory design or alignment. However, their use builds in two strong assumptions: that local comparisons are sufficient evidence about how a person wants an automated decision rule to behave, and that people can always answer those comparisons decisively. We investigate how these assumptions may be compromised under internal pluralism: the idea that an individual evaluates decision rules according to multiple authoritative priorities about how the rule should behave. We provide a formal model of such pluralistic preferences over decision rules, which then lets us identify two distinct failures of forced local pairwise comparison data. First, priorities such as proportionality, egalitarianism, and equal treatment are inherently global: what they imply in one case can depend on what happens elsewhere, so local comparisons may fail to capture them. Second, even when priorities are representable locally, tension between strongly-held priorities can generate internal conflict, producing potentially costly behavioral distortions when comparisons are forced. We then use our model to investigate the alternative -- allowing people to report indecision -- and our findings suggest that doing so can considerably reduce the number of queries needed to learn preferences accurately. We conclude by describing how our model points toward preference-learning methods that elicit these priorities directly, yielding more faithful and interpretable accounts of what people value.